Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions —

Mr. Speaker: I appeal to those hon. Members who are called to put supplementary questions to ask only one and thus enable us to make greater progress.

WALES

Housing (Underspend)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest available estimate of the underspend on housing in Wales during the current financial year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The local authority expenditure returns for the first two quarters show an underspend of around £80 million. However, following conversations with the local authorities, we hope that that figure might be substantially reduced.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the matter will be resolved in a manner that is acceptable to his Department?

Mr. Roberts: As I said, we hope that we can considerably reduce that underspend. The uprating of renovation grants in the Budget, and the announcement that higher rates will be available next year, coupled with the fact that excess expenditure under that head this year will be covered by increased allocations, should encourage local authorities to be more enterprising in their use of resources. In addition, we are encouraging enveloping schemes of repair in housing action areas and low-cost home ownership schemes. However, it is a matter for local authority action.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister confirm that there is some difference of opinion between the Welsh Office and local authority treasurers in Wales as to the suitability of using the money for new build or further capital purposes rather than first repaying the outstanding debts on loans that were taken up when assets were first bought? What is the advice of the Welsh Office on that issue?

Mr. Roberts: We are fully aware, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman and local authorities are, of housing needs in Wales. The latest survey reveals that that need is acute. I understand that local authorities are carrying forward their capital allocations, redeeming debts, or investing the money in order to use the interest to keep rent levels down. My advice and that of my officials is clear. The money should be used for housing purposes.

Mr. Alec Jones: Will the Minister confirm that he told the Council for the Principality that, on his conservative

estimate, we should need to build new dwellings at the rate of about 12,000 per annum in Wales? Will the Minister also confirm that the Labour Government achieved that figure, while this Government have not achieved such a figure in any single year of office?

Mr. Roberts: The current underspend is nothing new and it means that money is available. Not only is there money available for new build now, but there was money available last year, when there was an underspend of some £35 million. Labour authorities are as guilty as any others of not meeting the housing needs that we have spelt out.

Severn Barrage

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what study he has made of the likely effect of the Severn barrage project on employment in Wales.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): A scheme on the scale proposed would create a substantial number of jobs at different times during the construction period. It is not possible at this stage to be more precise about the job impact on any particular area.

Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the economic case for the Severn barrage becomes stronger every day? Does he appreciate that the cost per kilowatt hour of the electricity produced would be comparable to that produced by new coal power stations and new nuclear power stations? Is my hon. Friend also aware that, conversely, the job creation potential of the Severn barrage diminshes with time as construction technology advances?

Mr. Roberts: Yes. I have seen several estimates for job creation as a result of the scheme, varying from 50,000, as has been suggested by my hon. Friend, to 20,000 to 30,000, as has been referred to by the Severn barrage committee. The question is whether there is an economic case for the barrage on electricity generation grounds. We are considering that.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Are not the Government dragging their feet over the question of a second crossing for the Severn? Does the Minister agree that in order to tackle an imaginative project such as the Severn barrage scheme Britain needs a Government with faith in their people, not one who are prepared to allow 4 million citizens to languish in the dole queues?

Mr. Roberts: No, Sir. Mere verbiage will not solve the problem of the Severn barrage or the crossing. The problem is that the barrage will not be where the crossing is needed.

Unemployment

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total increase in unemployment in Wales, Clwyd and the Deeside travel-to-work area since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Between May 1979 and October 1982 the numbers unemployed increased by 102,062, 13,779 and 5,837 respectively.

Mr. Jones: Given the massive beating that the steel industry in Wales has taken in the past few years, what action is the Secretary of State taking to assist it? Does the


right hon. Gentleman know that there are widespread fears in Wales about further steel redundancies? Is he prepared to meet tomorrow union and civic leaders who will be travelling from North Wales to the steel lobby to express their deep concern about the future?

Mr. Edwards: I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and with the chairman of the BSC in considering the chairman's proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced that he hopes to reach conclusions before Christmas.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast sums needed to maintain crude steel production in the United Kingdom, even at its present reduced level, might be better employed in creating new jobs in which there is a better chance of competing with the rest of the world?

Mr. Edwards: It is worth recording that, due to the efforts made so far, not least by the work force, the major plants in Wales have a good chance of competing with the rest of the world. That is the best guarantee of their future.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does the Secretary of State agree that for historic reasons private investment capital is not as readily available in Wales as it is in England and that, accordingly, public investment must play a greater role?

Mr. Edwards: In the past few years there has been substantial public investment. However, we must use it to trigger more private investment. That is one of the objects of the urban development grant scheme. I am gratified by the number of proposals that have been brought forward and I hope that that will attract significant additional private sector investment in Wales.

Mr. Alec Jones: As the unemployment figures have been massaged downwards, there are about 10,000 Welsh people who are still unemployed but who are no longer registered as such. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the number employed in Wales has fallen by 125,000 since he took office, which means that fewer people are now employed in Wales than in any year since the war?

Mr. Edwards: I confirm that I have given figures on the historic basis and not in connection with the changes announced last week by the Secretary of State for Employment. I accept that during the severe recession there has been a significant fall in the number of those employed.

Unemployment (Gwynedd)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the number of people in Gwynedd who are unemployed; what proportion of the work force this represents; and what were the comparable figures for May 1979 and October 1974, respectively.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In October 1982 the figure was 13,029, or 17·0 per cent., of the employee population. In May 1979 the figure was 6,463, or 8·5 per cent., and in October 1974 4,392, or 6·4 per cent.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that the people of Gwynedd find that constant doubling of unemployment quite unacceptable? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Sweden unemployment stands at only 4 per cent. and that that figure is regarded as

unacceptably high and avoidable? Is he further aware that Sweden is actively creating jobs to reduce that percentage? What do the Government intend to do to reduce unemployment in Gwynedd?

Mr. Edwards: Of course unemployment is distressingly high, although it is no higher in Gwynedd than in Wales as a whole. Long-term jobs will be created if we can overcome the inflation and non-competitiveness of recent years, and significant progress is being made in that direction. However, we can be sure that unemployment will not be solved by schemes that involve a 30 per cent. devaluation, non-existent incomes policies and the sort of things proposed by the Opposition.

Mr. Marlow: Given the tragic increase in unemployment in Gwynedd, in Wales as a whole and in the United Kingdom, does it not follow that if the Government bring forward new immigration rules they should not allow for any primary immigration of males seeking jobs?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend will be aware that I am not responsible for immigration policy. However, he may not be aware that there is a very small immigration population in Wales and that it is even smaller in Gwynedd. Therefore, immigration cannot be seen as a significant factor in increasing unemployment in the Principality.

Unemployment (Ceredigion)

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to alleviate the level of unemployment in Ceredigion.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Development Board for Rural Wales and other agencies are already taking substantial steps in this regard.

Mr. Howells: Has the Secretary of State any encouraging news for those leaving school before Christmas in the Teifi valley? During the past 10 years, under successive Governments, unemployment has stood at over 20 per cent.

Mr. Edwards: No, but, as was the case last year, an encouraging number of school leavers have obtained employment this year or are being catered for by one of the job creation schemes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the new scheme of grants which the Development Board for Rural Wales has recently announced to assist job creation in the area.

Mr. Hooson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any comparable area of unemployment in England or Wales that has received the advantage of the recent investment incentive grants announced for mid-Wales?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend is right, and it might be rash to attract the attention of others to that point. Unemployment in mid-Wales is not as high as it is in some other areas, where the incentives are less attractive.

Dr. Roger Thomas: What crumbs of hope and comfort can the Secretary of State offer to people living on both sides of the Teifi valley—only part of which comes under the ingenious and inventive aegis of the DBRW—in relation to reducing unemployment, which already stands at 20 to 25 per cent.?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are other agencies and that the Welsh Development


Agency covers the whole of Wales. It has a wide package of measures to attract industry throughout its area of responsibility.

Pit Closures

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of pit closures upon the economy and social fabric of the Welsh valley communities.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: As is well known, pit closures have affected these areas of Wales for many years, and notably in the period up to 1970. A wide range of Government policies have been introduced to deal with the consequences and in particular to widen the employment base throughout South Wales.

Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware that pit closures since 1970 have had a devastating effect, particularly on the constituency of Ogmore, which has witnessed the closure of the Caerau colliery, and the closure last year of the Coegnant colliery? There is now a hit list which includes another colliery, Nant-y-Moel, in my constituency. In Ogmore there are now 8,000 people on the dole, but only 100 vacancies. What do the Government intend to do? Can the Secretary of State do something about the development of a new mine at Margam?

Mr. Edwards: There was a significant fall in the number of those employed in Welsh mines under successive Labour Administrations. However, since late 1981, when the Coegnant pit in the hon. Gentleman's constituency closed, there have been only three partial pit closures in Wales. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been a reduction in numbers. However, decisions about pit closures are a matter for the National Coal Board to negotiate with the unions.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does not the best hope for a healthy coal industry in Wales and the maximum employment of miners lie in phasing out those pits which, for geological reasons, are no longer capable of profitable production, and, instead, concentrating resources on the potentially good producers?

Mr. Edwards: Two factors are involved. The first is the sensible and reasonable approach recently demonstrated by miners in refusing to follow their leaders into an impossible pay demand. The second is that we must concentrate on the pits with the greatest potential. Over a period that will inevitably mean the closure of some of our worked-out pits.

Mr. Alec Jones: Has the Secretary of State studied the document published in Brussels earlier this year entitled "The Role for Coal in the Community Energy Strategy"? Does he agree that, the call in that document for massively expanded imports of non-EEC produced coal could have disastrous consequences for the Welsh coal industry? Would it not make much greater sense for the Welsh coal industry to receive adequate investment to allow us to develop the Margam new mine and replace the Phurnacite plant at Abercwmboi?

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Very substantial investment is going into the coal industry. Total capital investment in the United Kingdom for 1981–82 was £722 million. The National Coal Board must decide in which pits it invests.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures of the number of people who are unemployed in Wales, Mid-Glamorgan and Aberdare; what percentage this represents of the working population; and how these figures compare with May 1979.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 14 October 1982 unemployment totalled 185,086, 35,698 and 4,212 respectively, representing unemployment rates of 17·4, 18·2 and 19·3 per cent. The corresponding figures and percentages for May 1979 were 83,024—7·5 per cent., 15,471—8·5 per cent. and 1,961—9·0 per cent.

Mr. Evans: When the Government say that the reason for unemployment is lack of competitiveness, what does the Secretary of State have to say about the Government's record, as British competitiveness has fallen by 38 per cent. since they came to office? With regard to the South Wales pits, will the Secretary of State read the evidence submitted by the South Wales miners to the Select Committee last week, in which it was shown that investment in the South Wales pits has not come from the Coal Board? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing as Secretary of State?

Mr. Edwards: I shall answer only one of those questions—the first. I must point out that there has been a substantial recovery of competitiveness in the past two years and that the measures taken by the Government, the seven points reduction in interest rates, which is worth about £1½ billion to £2 billion in reducing industry's costs, the reduction in Labour's wicked job tax, which will save industry probably £1 billion this year and £1½ billion next year, and the doing away with deferment on regional development grants, which is worth about £30 million to Welsh industry alone, are all considerable measures to improve the competitiveness of British industry.

Sir Raymond Gower: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the great potential of the building and construction industries? Will he examine carefully the proposals that have been put to him by the official organisation of builders in Wales, which believes that it can make a useful contribution?

Mr. Edwards: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have a massive road building and hospital building programme. If only the local authorities, which are predominantly Labour-controlled, would spend the £90 million or so which they look like underspending this year, the construction industry would be greatly helped.

Mr. Rowlands: Given all these tremendous incentives, when will a new firm come to Merthyr borough? Is the Secretary of State aware that there has not been one since May 1979?

Mr. Edwards: I entirely agree that we would like to see more jobs coming into Merthyr borough, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the upturn in the retail trade, which is benefiting the Hoover firm in his constituency. I noted that he laughed at my suggestion at a previous Welsh Question Time that it was now enjoying a mini-boom, but that was exactly the phrase the company used when it issued its quarterly results.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the unemployment figures have now reached emergency levels?

Mr. Edwards: I agree that they are extremely serious. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has repeatedly raised the specific issue of unemployment in the town of Flint, will welcome the decision to set up an enterprise zone there and will now do everything to encourage the local authority to make a success of it. I found it very surprising that the hon. Gentleman did not come to the House this afternoon to thank me for that announcement.

Bodelwyddan (Road Accident)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will study the incidence of accidents on the A55 road at Bodelwyddan, Clwyd; and if he will take steps to reduce accidents on this stretch of road pending the completion of the bypass of the village.

Mr. Michael Roberts: The Welsh Office has been keeping this under review. Various safety measures have been introduced and a pedestrian footbridge has been provided. Because of the recent fatal accidents, I have asked Clwyd county council to improve the junction with Ty Fry Lane. The Welsh Office will also consider with the council what additional preventive measures might be introduced.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful answer. Does he agree that the only long-term answer is to speed up the construction of the bypass? Since all agree that the only effective short-term answer would appear to be the painting of double white lines on the road, will he arrange for the present regulations forbidding the painting of double white lines in such circumstances to be overridden if necessary?

Mr. Roberts: The Bodelwyddan bypass will progress as quickly as possible, but I do not expect a start to be made before 1984. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the constructive suggestion about white lines. These will be considered by the county surveyor and the Department's officials.

Unemployment (Garnant and Ammanford)

Dr. Roger Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unemployment figures for the Garnant and Ammanford travel-to-work areas of the Amman valley.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 14 October unemployment in the travel-to-work area covering Garnant and Ammanford was 7,066, a rate of 19 per cent.

Dr. Thomas: As the figures that the Secretary of State has been kind enough to produce emphasise the bleakness of the unemployment position throughout the Amman valley, may I ask him to plead with the Department of Industry to give back to the area its former financial incentives, otherwise firms such as Beechwood, which has parallel plants in England and Wales, will invariably close its Welsh operations in hard times?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is now part of a travel-to-work area that is a uniform development area. There has recently been an announcement in that travel-to-work area of major factory building

by the Welsh Development Agency and that there is also a major road improvement to link the area to the M4. All these, I am sure, will help.

Youth Service

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied that the youth service in Wales is able to provide for all young people who have need of it; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Her Majesty's inspectors have recently undertaken a comprehensive study of the youth services provided by local education authorities and voluntary organisations in Wales. I expect to have their report by next spring.

Mr. Thomas: Will the Minister tell us when he expects to publish this report so that there can be full discussion of its implications within the youth service in Wales, as the Government have published already the report of the review group on youth service in England?

Mr. Roberts: It will be my intention to publish the report soon after I receive it from the inspectors. There is no real reason for accepting the English report, as we have our own coming out in the spring.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the proposals recently put forward by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment for job-splitting among young people could make a useful contribution to ensuring that larger numbers of school leavers have a job to go to, even if it is, for the time being, a part-time job?

Mr. Roberts: The proposal to split jobs is helpful for young people seeking employment. When we are discussing the youth service, we are more concerned with the services and clubs provided for young people in the Principality.

Unemployment (Newport)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure of the number of people unemployed in Newport, Gwent; and what percentage of the working population in Newport this represents.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: As at 14 October 1982 a total of 13,821 were unemployed in the Newport travel-to-work area, representing 15·4 per cent. of the working population.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall that not so long ago I was describing Newport as the workshop of Wales, but that now approximately 16 per cent. of its population are unemployed, largely as a result of the policies of this Government, whom he has so assiduously supported? Does his conscience tell him at times that he should resign or, as Max Boyce would put it, is it not time for him to put the tools on the bar?

Mr. Edwards: I note that despite the reductions in employment in the steel industry in the area, unemployment is well below the Welsh average. I also note that there are nearly 1 million sq. ft. of Welsh Development Agency premises in the wider travel-to-work area around Newport. I note also, with pleasure, that the Cwmbran development corporation's factories are being occupied almost as fast as it can build them. In fact, only


planning problems with the county council means that more factories are not available. It shows that the area is attractive to incoming industry.

Mr. Grist: Would my right hon. Friend care to guess at the unemployment that might result in Newport from the massive increase in public expenditure espoused by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) and his proposal that Britain should leave the European Economic Community?

Mr. Edwards: Leaving the EEC would immediately put a stop to inward investment like that in Mitel, which is to provide about 1,700 jobs in the area. If we had a 30 per cent. devaluation without an effective incomes policy there would be a massive and destructive increase in inflation. Anyone who imagines that there will be an effective incomes policy under a Labour Government can imagine anything.

National Health Service (Expenditure)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the amount of the increase of real expenditure on the Health Service in Wales since May 1979.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Between 1979–80 and the end of the current financial year we have provided for an increase of almost 10 per cent. in real terms in total Health Service spending in Wales.

Mr. Hooson: Does not that big real increase make nonsense of the Opposition's talk about a cut in health services in Wales? How does the Government's revenue allocation to health authorities compare with that of their predecessors?

Mr. Roberts: The real measure of the Government's commitment to the NHS lies in the health authority revenue allocations. Between 1974–75 and 1978–79 revenue allocations in Wales rose by 10·6 per cent. and between 1978–79 and 1982–83 by 11·3 per cent.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Can the Minister tell the House, Health Service workers and clients in Wales, the real implications of the proposals circulated in the recent document? Will they not result in reduction in allocations to health authorities?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman—and I am surprised at it—has misunderstood the doucment. It begins by saying that allocations for next year have not yet been decided. The document was concerned with achieving the best value for money in the Health Service in Wales and with priorities for spending in the Health Service in Wales.

Mr. Wardell: In which areas of medical care has there been a real reduction in expenditure per head on the Health Service in Wales since May 1979?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should table a question to obtain a detailed answer. It is clear from the 10 per cent. growth in real terms—and this applies to capital spending as well, because this year we shall spend £45·5 million by way of capital spend, which is 20 per cent. up on the previous year—that there has been growth in most health spending in Wales.

Dr. Roger Thomas: What financial provision has the Minister made for educating the community to receive discharged mentally ill and mentally handicapped people

into its midst? The Minister has said that education is more important than legislation in such circumstances. Is the Welsh Office in the "Brittan" or the "Fowler" corner in relation to the uprating of Health Service expenditure?

Mr. Roberts: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman has been following all the consultations and what has happened as a result of the publication of "Care in the Community". Is he not aware that recently the first all-Wales health forum was held and that the matter was thoroughly discussed under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? Of course we are taking special steps to improve the lot of mentally handicapped people in the community. They deserve the high priority that the working party accorded to them.

Trunk Roads (Wrexham)

Mr. Tom Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what length of new trunk roads has been completed in the area covered by the Wrexham constituency during the past two years.

Mr. Michael Roberts: None, but, as the hon. Member knows, we are considering proposals for major improvements to the A483 trunk road within his constituency.

Mr. Ellis: Is the Minister aware that male unemployment in the Wrexham area—one of the most populous areas in North Wales—now involves almost one-quarter of the labour force? Does he agree that one of the best remedies for that deplorable state is to improve the inadequate road communications to the motorway system? In this pre-election period will that crucial issue be tackled with urgency?

Mr. Roberts: The issue has been tackled, and it has nothing to do with a pre-election period. The work on the schemes is proceeding, as quickly as design needs and statutory processes allow, to both the north and south of Wrexham. I hope that work on both schemes, involving an estimated combined cost of £42 million, can start in 1985 and that it will be completed satisfactorily.

Unemployment

Mr. Hudson Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of unemployment in Wales; what percentage increase this represents since the same time in 1981; and what are the corresponding figures for mid-Glamorgan.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 14 October 1982 unemployment in Wales totalled 185,086, an increase of 8·8 per cent. since October 1981. The corresponding figure for mid-Glamorgan was 35,698, an increase of 10·4 per cent.

Mr. Hudson Davies: Will the Secretary of State concede that the true seriousness of the position is illustrated by the fact that in Wales as a whole there are 31 unemployed people for each vacancy? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in mid-Glamorgan there are 44 people unemployed for each vacancy? Is he further aware that in the Bargoed travel-to-work area in my constituency no fewer than 70 people are hunting for each vacant job? Does not that serious problem call for urgent and massive, not cosmetic, action? Has the Minister plans for such massive steps?

Mr. Edwards: I welcome two members of the SDP to the House this afternoon, in the absence of five-sixths of the Welsh parliamentary Labour Party, to ask about unemployment. We allocated a record number of new factories in Wales last year. This year already the acreage is up on last year. We are almost achieving 1½ million sq. ft. of new allocated floor space.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Labour Members walked out in disgust at hearing the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Minister examine the evidence submitted by the South Wales branch of the National Union of Mineworkers to the Select Committee? Is he aware that it stated that extra investment in the South Wales pits was imperative, particularly in the Phurnacite plant in my constituency? Is there any truth in the rumour that there may soon be redundancies at that plant?

Mr. Edwards: That is a decision for the National Coal Board, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, because we made our position clear about that plant. The hon. Gentleman also knows that there is a conflict between the environmental and manufacturing considerations, which causes difficulties.

Mr. Alec Jones: Whichever figures the Secretary of State cares to use—whether the actual numbers unemployed, the seasonally adjusted figures, the new fiddled figures or the percentages—he cannot dodge the fact that since he has been responsible for Wales unemployment in the Principality has more than doubled. Does that not prove his impotence, because, even in Pembroke docks, in his area, unemployment is 29·5 per cent. and the highest in Wales? Does it not also show that the Government are bankrupt of ideas and have no intention of reducing unemployment in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: At least I do not go before the House and the country with a spurious promise that one can reduce unemployment to 1 million over a period. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he does not have even the beginnings of an idea of how that can be done.

Technical Education

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken by his Department to establish pilot schemes in connection with the new technical education initiative.

Mr. Michael Roberts: As has already been announced, one of the pilot projects will be located in Wales. Initial discussions have taken place between the Welsh Office, the Manpower Services Commission, the Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Joint Education Committee. Other interests in Wales will be brought in as the planning of the scheme develops.

Mr. Grist: How many young people will be involved in the scheme and how will they be selected?

Mr. Roberts: About 1,000 young people across the age range 14 to 18 will be involved in the Welsh project at any one time, once the scheme has built up over the first four years. Participation of suitable young people will be voluntary. The method of selection will be decided for each project and may vary between the localities.

Dr. Roger Thomas: When the Minister sets up the pilot scheme, will he remember that there are areas in addition to the south-east that are crying out for such a scheme?

Mr. Roberts: I am quite sure that the scheme will prove so popular that there will be bids from local authorities all over the Principality.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister examine the impact of locating MSC schemes in the further education sector on that sector's work? Is he aware that that sector is already hard-pressed? Will he bear in mind that, because the schemes are often temporary, local authorities are unable to make long-term provision for staffing and resources?

Mr. Roberts: I shall examine that matter.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Clergymen (Remuneration)

Mr. Greenway: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is the remuneration of a clergyman serving in a team ministry; and if he will make a statement.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners (Sir William van Straubenzee): For the year from 1 April 1982 the recommended national minimum stipend for incumbents, including team rectors and vicars, is £5,500 per year together with housing free from rent, rates, repairs and insurance.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, although there are some notable team ministries in Britain, they have sounded the death knell for the Church in many areas? Does he further agree that in those areas the priesthood has become so remote from the laity that there is no real or important meeting between the two? Will my hon. Friend try to persuade his friends to do something about that?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I am glad that my hon. Friend distinguished between the work of some team ministeries and others. In fairness, some of them are extremely effective. If my hon. Friend has specific cases in mind, perhaps I may inform him that the General Synod has set up a working group under the chairmanship of Dame Betty Ridley to inquire into these and related matters. I shall be happy to give my hon. Friend the address to which he can make representations.

Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that no clergyman of the Church of England, whether in a team ministry or not, is allowed to give up the cure of souls to join us here?

Sir William van Straubenzee: Any move in the direction that my hon. Friend foreshadowed would have to be approved by the House. No doubt the House would have the benefit of my hon. Friend's powerful advocacy on that occasion.

Stock Exchange Transfers

Mr. Mates: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners,


what is the estimated saving in 1982 in stamp duty on stock exchange transfers by the Commissioners as a result of the total exemption for charities introduced in the Finance Act 1982.

Sir William van Straubenzee: It is estimated that the saving to the Commissioners in the calendar year 1982 will be about £150,000.

Mr. Mates: Does my hon. Friend agree that that considerable saving is a good example of what the Chancellor and the Government have been able to do both for charities and the Church Commissioners in the past year?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that question. I agree. Although the figure can be only an estimate, the saving in a full year may rise to £180,000. The Church Commissioners are extremely appreciative.

INDUSTRY

Regionl Development Grants

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now review the working of regional development grants under the Industry Act 1972 so as to improve their effectiveness in relation to the economic circumstances of counties such as Gwynedd.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry announced in the House on Tuesday 9 November an immediate end to the four-month deferment of regional development grant payments. Combined with a reduction in the average time taken to approve grant payments in Wales to about five weeks from the receipt of the application, this represents a substantial improvement in the effectiveness of the working of the scheme.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that unemployment in Gwynedd doubled from 4,000 to 8,000 between 1974 and 1979 and that it has doubled again to more than 17,000 since 1979? Is he further aware that during that time large parts of Gwynedd have lost development area status? Is he aware also that the level of unemployment in the Arfon and Dwyfor areas is higher than in many areas that enjoy special development area status? Does he agree that there is a case reviewing those areas and giving them back the special area status that they once enjoyed?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that a review of various travel-to-work areas and their assisted area status was carried out in the summer and decisions were announced then. It was made clear that there would be no more major changes during the present Parliament unless there were exceptional reasons for them. I have reexamined the levels of unemployment in the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I do so frequently. The hon. Gentleman will know that more than 90 per cent. of the working population in Wales are in assisted areas. That is the case in Gwynedd. I am satisfied that, in relation to other travel-to-work areas, the present gradings are correct.

Mr. Ioan Evans: What criteria are used to determine whether an area should have special development or other status? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been

a reduction in a number of special development areas in Wales while unemployment has doubled? Is he further aware that there is 20 per cent. male umemployment in my area and yet it has been demoted from being a special development area to a development area?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that there are a series of criteria. Unemployment and its relative level is one factor. The others are spelt out in the Industry Act 1972 and are often repeated in the House. Special development areas are always based on travel-to-work areas. There is one travel-to-work area in Gwynedd, for example, that enjoys special development area status. No other travel-to-work area in Gwynedd approaches the national average of special development area. That gives some idea of how we examine the relative levels of unemployment, but unemployment is not the only factor.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Victoria and Albert and Science Museums

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make a statement about the remaining recommendations of the Rayner scrutiny on the Victoria and Albert museum and the Science museum.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon): I am still considering the remaining recommendations of the Rayner report in the light of the many comments received during and after the consultation period, but I hope to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind that Rayner reported as long ago as last May, will my right hon. Friend be more explicit about the timing of his statement? Will he also be more forthcoming about which recommendations he is likely to accept?

Mr. Channon: The Government immediately accepted the main recommendation of the Rayner report—that the Victoria and Albert and Science museums should be given a great deal of independence and should cease to be departmental museums. At the moment, the Bill is in another place. I hope to make a statement before Christmas. I hope that my hon. Friend will not make me anticipate what I shall say then. I hope to give the House an answer before then.

Mr. Whitehead: May I press the Minister a little further, as this is the last Arts Question Time before Christmas? Does the clause in the National Heritage Bill that allows museums to make charges without qualifications if they see fit mean that he has gone down the charges path? Would he not rather endorse the educational use of museums that is written into the Education Act 1964, which has recently been underpinned by the Select Committee's recommendations? Will the Minister endorse, as the Bill appears not to do, the wider managerial functions of trustees that Rayner suggested for the two new bodies that govern the museums? Will he include representatives in the museums—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I made an appeal earlier for hon. Members to ask only one supplementary question. The House has honoured that appeal today by and large. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now come to a conclusion.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the Minister agree that the trustees should include representatives of the work force within the museums?

Mr. Channon: I am surprised to hear that this is the last Arts Question Time before Christmas. The hon. Gentleman has information that is not available to me. With regard to charges, there has been no change since my answer at the end of May to the Rayner scrutiny report. The Government do not wish to compel museums to make charges but they will consider any proposals to that effect on their merits. We shall have plenty of opportunity, in due course to debate the Bill that is in another place. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's views in mind when that happens.

Arts Council

Mr. Tilley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the secretary general of the Arts Council.

Mr. Channon: I hold regular meetings with the chairman and secretary general at which a variety of matters of common interest are discussed.

Mr. Tilley: Is the Minister aware that Kelmscott House, the home of William Morris, who was a great Socialist and artist, is being lost to the public and that it has been bought by a man who intends to turn William Morris' study into a kitchen? Will the right hon. Gentleman have an urgent meeting with the secretary general of the Arts Council to evolve a plan so that not only is that house restored to the public, but the achievements of Morris and his followers in literature and design are made available to the public through performance and exhibition?

Mr. Channon: I cannot believe that this is a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the house. I very much enjoyed attending, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, in whose constituency it took place, the reopening of the William Morris museum recently.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: When my right hon. Friend next has discussions with the secretary general of the Arts Council, will he find out what sums are paid to the administrators of the Royal Opera House and the National Theatre? It is rumoured that the sums amount to £60,000 a year or more. Instead of bleating for more money from the taxpayer, is it not possible that they could run their affairs and their jobs more efficiently in the first place?

Mr. Channon: The Royal Opera House probably spends less money than any other international opera house in the world. I do not know the details of the salaries of the administrators. If the House in general wishes those details to be discovered, I would have no objection.

Mr. Freud: When he next meets representatives of the Arts Council, will the Minister discuss the provision of marketing expertise, especially for civic theatres, possibly by involving industry that sponsors and aids the arts?

Mr. Channon: Yes. That is an extremely good idea. The arts organisations vary considerably in marketing

expertise. Some are extremely good at it. There are plenty of lessons to be learnt. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Silvester: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the secretary general of the Arts Council the great concern that has arisen about the subsidy for the Royal Opera House since there are plans no longer to use a theatre that has been specially converted for its benefit in the city of Manchester?

Mr. Channon: Yes. That is a topic that I shall be discussing with the chairman and the secretary general of the Arts Council in view of the widespread concern that has been expressed. It is an extremely complicated matter. I do not believe that all the facts have yet emerged. It is, however, one of the main topics that I shall wish to discuss.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the Minister aware that he has had in his possession for some months a letter from the chairman of the Arts Council which stressed that, unless a minimum of £98·5 million was paid in grant this year, substantial cuts would have to be imposed on national companies and regional activities which, to some extent, the Arts Council has supported? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a figure of 4 per cent. or thereabouts, rumoured as the amount to be given this year, would be disastrous for the national companies and the regional system?

Mr. Channon: The House must recognise that it is impossible to exempt the arts completely from financial constraints that are inevitable in the economy as a whole. I shall naturally do my best for the arts. Hon. Members will be interested to see the details of the grants when I am able to announce them.

Conference of Cultural Ministers

Mr. Murphy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Mexico for the conference of cultural Ministers.

Mr. Channon: I attended the UNESCO world conference on cultural policies in Mexico City in July. The contributions made by some countries were dominated by political considerations, but on the whole the conference provided a useful opportunity for discussing a variety of cultural questions.

Mr. Murphy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are strong arguments for maintaining collections of world-wide significance, not necessarily within the country of origin? In the case of the Elgin Marbles, would not the provision of replicas be the solution?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be a number of world-wide collections. The British delegation made it clear that it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to invite independent institutions to break up their collections. To do so would require legislation. I doubt if this could be got through Parliament. Should any country wish to have replicas, the Government would consider sympathetically any such approach.

Arts Council (Grant)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the grant allocation for the Arts Council for the coming year.

Mr. Channon: As soon as possible.

Mr. Whitehead: I wish to return to two matters on which I have not received a satisfactory reply. [Interruption.] They relate to the same subject. Has the right hon. Gentleman replied to the chairman of the Arts Council? If so, what were the terms of that reply and will be publish the correspondence? The original letter was a public letter. What comments has the Minister to make on statements by two of four major national companies now operating in London to the effect that they are experiencing severe financial difficulties as a result of constraints under this Government?

Mr. Channon: I have not replied to the chairman of the Arts Council. The reply will be made when the Arts Council grants are announced in due course. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has failed to follow up the original question that he put to me. So far as I can see, whenever the Labour Party has been in power, the Arts Council grants have not been announced much before February. I hope to announce them this year.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Ministry of Defence still spend much more on military bands than the Arts Council spends on music projects?

Mr. Channon: If the hon. Gentleman will be good not enough to put down that question to my right hon. Friend, he will recieve an accurate answer. My guess is that the answer is "Yes".

Mr. Rhodes James: Will the allocation take account especially of the problems of university museums, not least the Fitzwilliam museum at Cambridge, and also of the problems of regional orchestras?

Mr. Channon: It will certainly take account of regional orchestras. Regional museums will be dealt with through the rate support grant. This is a matter for local authorities. The Government do not fund directly university or regional museums. I am aware that my hon. Friend is especially concerned about university museums. This is mainly a matter for the University Grants Committee and the museums themselves. I am, however, aware of the problems to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Minister give a straightforward answer to a question already put to him? It seems likely that the Government will reduce the grant for next year to 4 per cent. If that is the case, the figure will be substantially lower than the inflation rate and arts councils will suffer. Will the Minister recognise that the Northern area, reputed, quite wrongly, to be grimy and uncultured, is the sort of area where there should be positive discrimination by way of an increase far above 4 per cent?

Mr. Channon: There is a question on the Order Paper about the Northern region, which will be reached in a moment. The rate of inflation next year is likely to be 5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is guessing about the level of the Arts Council grant. We shall have to see. With the rate of inflation in the economy generally standing at 5 per cent., even the prospect that the hon. Gentleman holds out does not sound so disastrous as he maintains.

Sir William Elliott: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Northern region receives more in grant for the arts than any other region? Does he agree that comments about the region lacking in artistic support are bad for it and do no good at all?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right. The Arts Council funds events in the Northern region to the extent of about £2 million—

Mr. Dormand: Peanuts.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman may take the view that it is peanuts. It is a great deal higher than the amount for other regions outside Scotland and Wales. Most people believe that Northern arts do very well.

The Arts (North-West Region)

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the total expenditure on the arts in the North-West region in the current financial year.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the provision for the arts in the North-West.

Mr. Channon: The level of regional provision is a matter for the Arts Council. I understand that the allocation to the North-West for 1982–83 is just under £2·4 million, an increase of nearly 11 per cent. over the previous year.

Mr. Eastham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I wish to refer again to the recent expressions of disgust and anger in the North-West over the statement by the Royal Opera House that it will not visit Manchester next year. Will the Minister undertake to have an urgent meeting on behalf of North-West Members or issue an ultimatum to those concerned to the effect that he will discontinue funds to the Arts Council?

Mr. Channon: No. I do not think I shall do that. I believe that the Greater Manchester council wishes to seek a meeting with the Arts Council about the Palace theatre, Manchester. If the council wishes to see me following that meeting, I shall be delighted. I can well understand the feelings that have arisen in the North-West. This is an extremely complicated matter that is difficult to resolve briefly at Question Time.

Mr. Sheldon: Is the Minister not aware that there is extreme anger and anxiety over the bad faith shown by the Royal Opera House in cancelling unilaterally the proposed tour to the North-West? Is he aware that substantial sums were spent in the Manchester area to bring the Palace theatre up to the standard required? It is unjustifiable to say, without any consultation, that this arrangement for next year has come to an end. Is the Minister aware that this action merits the strongest direct representation on his part to those concerned?

Mr. Channon: I am aware of the strong feelings that have been aroused in the North-West. If I had not been aware, the early-day motion, to which there are a large number of signatures, would have made me aware of them. The Royal Opera House estimated that it would have cost about £370,000 extra out of its grant to go to Manchester. It already has substantial financial problems. That is why the decision has been taken. However, as I


have said, I shall be delighted to receive representations from the Greater Manchester council, should it wish to make them after it has seen the Arts Council.

Mr. Whitehead: I know that the Minister cannot answer for the Arts Council, but does he agree that it would be a complete scandal if the £1½ million invested in the Palace theatre were to be wasted and if the people were to be deprived of opera in the Manchester region purely because of a decision taken one year in advance, before the Royal Opera House could know what financial support it could get in the locality?

Mr. Channon: It is not as if the people in Manchester are being deprived of opera. There are plenty of regional opera companies. It is arguable whether it is better, both artistically and financially, to build up to greater heights the excellent touring opera companies, such as those of Welsh National Opera, Scottish Opera and Opera North rather than have occasional tours by Covent Garden, which cost larger sums of money. I am not sure that they do as much good as would the raising of the standards of regional opera companies. However, I understand the feelings of the House.

Argentina (French Arms Sales)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the consequences for the security of the Falkland Islands of the consignment of aircraft and missiles sailing for Argentina from France.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): I am confident that our garrison on the Falkland Islands has the necessary means, including early warning, and a range of air defence capabilities, to ensure the continued protection of the islands.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that the decision to renew the sales of Exocets, which inflicted such appalling damage and loss of life on British forces very recently, is astonishing and shameful on the part of a supposedly friendly Power? Is the Secretary of State making endeavours to persuade the French Government to renew their ban on arms sales until the Argentines abandon their threat to British sovereign territory? In view of the continuing threat that those missiles will present to the security of the islands, will my right hon. Friend in the last resort be willing to take advantage of the United Nations charter that provides for the right of self-defence, intercept the vessels and send them back to France?

Mr. Nott: I shall answer my hon. Friend's last question first. Article 51 of the charter provides for self-defence, but I know of no international legal basis for intercepting a vessel on the high seas.

Mr. Faulds: What about the Belgrano?

Mr. Nott: With regard to the early part of my hon. Friend's question, France suspended all arms deliveries to Argentina during the conflict. Now that the Falkland Islands have been recovered, the French consider that they must honour existing contracts. We naturally regret the decision in view of the fact that formal hostilities have not ended. We have expressed our feelings to the French Government. They are fully aware of our views.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will be accustomed to my saying that a private notice question is an extension of Question Time. Today, I will call three hon. Members from each side of the House, in addition to the Front Bench spokesman.

Mr. John Silkin: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that, as a result of Exocets going to Argentina, our early warning system is now capable of dealing with the matter? Is it not a fact that the ban on Roll-Royce engines to Germany, destined for Argentine destroyers, has been lifted? Since Her Majesty's Government—and previous Governments too, I fully accept—have supplied weapons of war that have gone to other countries to be used eventually against our own people, is it not about time that the Secretary of State called a conference of the political committee of NATO at least to co-ordinate what arms should be sold to whom and preferably to do away with the arms trade altogether?

Mr. Nott: I am confident that the early warning system now on the Falkland Islands will provide us with adequate warning of an attack by aircraft on the Falkland Islands.

It would be wholly against our policy to supply equipment such as Rolls-Royce engines direct to Argentina. However, those engines are part of a longstanding contract with a NATO ally and also with a most important trading partner. In making them available under the terms of an existing contract, we made it clear that we would be concerned about early delivery to Argentina.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that all Governments have sold arms to a variety of countries. The Labour Government sold a considerable volume of arms to Argentina. It would be difficult to construct an arrangement through NATO or any other medium, whereby arms were not transferred from one country to another.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman might try, at least. What sort of alliance is it when one says that the two principal allies can arm those who have killed one's own Servicemen and merchant marines in the past six months?

Mr. Nott: I have made it clear that we have expressed our feelings in that regard to France.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: While one acknowledges the devastating effects of Exocets on our forces off the Falkland Islands, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons that we learnt early from that was that the Exocet is not as smart as it is supposed to be, and that we can defeat it now by both electronic means and guns? Does he agree that it should be no longer the threat that it was in the past?

Mr. Nott: My hon. Friend is right. There is a whole range of passive and, even more, of active systems to counter an Exocet attack.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State recollect that throughout the war some of us pleaded with him and the Foreign Secretary to recognise that there was an uninterrupted flow of equipment and technical information from Aerospatiale to Argentina? Does he recollect being told of a seven-hour telephone conservation to M. Hervé Colin, leader of the Aerospatiale team in Bahia Blanca, the day before HMS "Sheffield" was attacked, about how to marry an Exocet, its fusing and arming, to the wing of an aircraft? Are we not whistling in the wind to suppose that the French will do anything different now from what they did before and during the war? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of the extra cost that the consequent greater alert will now mean for us? Surely we must recognise that France will not change her policy and, as Shakespeare said "Now thrive the armourers"?

Mr. Nott: I have read, particularly in the Sunday press, a great many speculative reports about what did or did not happen during the Falkland islands conflict. Many of them are, to my knowledge, totally inaccurate. I have no knowledge of telephone calls between Aerospatiale and Argentina.

Mr. Dalyell: There was about to be a revenge strike by Argentina to take out a ship. The Secretary of State's Department knows of the seven-hour phone call.

Mr. Nott: The hon. Gentleman has full knowledge of those matters, but it is not In my possession. There may be reports in Hansard about allegations to that effect, but that does not necessarily mean that they are accurate.
We are aware that there was a flow of equipment to Argentina from a number of countries during the conflict.


We reported on that at the time. During the conflict, no country among our NATO allies could have supported us more fully and wholeheartedly than France. Many of the reports that have appeared about the actions of the French during the conflict are wholly untrue. We had enormous support from the President of France and his Government throughout the Falklands conflict. We should be grateful to them for it.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: Although everyone must be concerned about any added danger to our forces and the Secretary of State is right to say that the French assisted us greatly during the Falklands campaign, should we not ask ourselves whether in a similar position we should not be doing the same thing, because we would? Although one appreciates that it takes two to make a bargain, and without denying any of our principles, does this not reinforce the necessity for active steps to bring peace and stability to the South Atlantic?

Mr. Nott: I entirely agree that we want a lasting settlement and security for the Falkland Islands and the South Atlantic. That is what we must aim for. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct about the support provided by the French Government during the conflict. It was very great and it was given unstintingly. So far as we know, the French did not supply any arms during that time.

Mr. Peter Viggers: As Argentina has never declared an end to hostilities, and in view of the turmoil and uncertainty within Argentina, as shown by the fact that the Argentine Government even now will not negotiate through the International Red Cross for the removal of their own dead from the Falkland Islands, is not the presence of missiles within Argentina a grave and constant threat to our forces? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Argentine Government will not declare an end to hostilities, it is necessary and incumbent upon us to ensure that those missiles do not arrive?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Bank of England is providing the money.

Mr. Nott: If the French Government and Aerospatiale decide to ship additional missiles to Argentina—I have no knowledge that additional Exocet missiles have already been shipped, despite reports to that effect—any addition to Argentina's missile stocks is certainly to be regretted. I have made it clear, however, that with our present defence arrangements in the Falkland Islands—our early warning systems, our Phantom aircraft and our other air defence systems—I believe that we can fully protect the Falkland Islands against any new attack.

Mr. Frank Allaun: If it is wrong to sell Exocet missiles to Argentina, why is it right to sell engines for destroyers made in Germany which will go to Argentina? The Minister says that this is a longstanding agreement, but did not the events of last spring alter all such longstanding agreements?

Mr. Nott: With regard to the Rolls-Royce engines, this was a longstanding contract entered into many years ago. Nevertheless, we approached the Germans and made it clear that we should regret any early delivery of frigates to Argentina. The reason why we are not supplying arms direct to Argentina is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that hostilities have not formally ended.

Sir Bernard Braine: Leaving aside for the moment the immorality of supplying any arms to a Fascist country with just about the worst human rights record in Latin America, why was it not made clear to the French Government that in the absence of any formal undertaking by Argentina not to renew aggression against the Falkland Islands it would be perfectly lawful to delay the fulfilment of the Exocet contract? Does the Minister agree that if the sale goes ahead the people, if not the Government, of this country are bound to conclude that we are being stabbed in the back by an ally? What has my right hon. Friend to say to that?

Mr. Nott: I have already told the House that we have made our views very clear to the French Government in this regard.

Steel

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on last Thursday's European Community discussions on steel.
Since my statement on 22 October, I have had talks on steel individually with my German and French colleagues, and further talks with the Commission—Vice-Presidents Davignon and Ortoli—and on Thursday I attended the informal meeting of Community Industry Ministers in Denmark. These meetings have taken place at a time of deepening crisis in the steel industries in this country, in the rest of the European Community and indeed in the whole of the industrialised world.
At the informal meeting in Denmark, the Commission stressed the seriousness of the forecast in its document "General Objectives for Steel", 1985, that the surplus steel-making capacity in the Community, already evident in 1980, will be even greater in 1985 with capacity for finished steel products exceeding forecast demand by nearly 50 million tonnes per year.
I stressed to my Community colleagues that the United Kingdom had done and was doing its part to reduce excess capacity and become competitive. I said that I could not and would not defend a situation in which our capacity cuts were not matched by other member States. If the Community's steel industries were to be restored to health, all Governments must pull together, and be seen to be doing so. This position was fully shared by eight of our nine partners. However, the Italian Minister expressed misgivings. I made it clear to the Commission that there must be no certificates of exemption in its administration of the State aids decision of August 1981.
I also drew attention once again to the increasing instability of steel prices in the Community and to the widespread allegations of abuse or evasion of the rules. I called for more effective policing of the price and quota rules; member State should be ready to assist the Commission in this task.
I am pleased to say that Vice-President Davignon outlined a battery of measures which the Commission is considering urgently in order to try to restore price stability and to improve the enforcement of the rules throughout the Community. It is the intention that formal commission proposals on these matters will be made in the next few days. These are important moves which will, I hope, tackle the problem of unfairly low-priced imports from other member States.
On imports from third countries, I repeated the Government's calls for a toughening of the voluntary restraint arrangements to be renegotiated for 1983, as regards both overall quantities and provisions to avoid disruptive surges in imports. The negotiating mandate has today been agreed at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, in a way that meets our principal concerns.
I also stressed the Government's concern about the level of United Kingdom imports from other member States of high-speed and tool steels, which has particularly affected the Sheffield-based industry. I have drawn the attention of all my Community colleagues to the need for action to deal with these problems. Vice-President Davignon's response was helpful in that he asked all

member States to examine the technical issues urgently. an essential first step is to extend the list of products covered by the Treaty of Paris.
Finally, I expressed concern about the recently announced decision of the President of the United States to open proceedings under section 201 of the Trade Act against imports of certain special steels from the European Community. I stressed the importance of seeking to resolve this issue speedily. Vice-President Davignon agreed that a Community position was urgently required.
The meeting in Denmark made useful progress in tackling the problems faced by the steel industry and should help to improve the outlook for British steel producers, in both the public and the private sector. In particular, the effectiveness of the Community steel policy will be an essential element in the discussions that I am having with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation about the corporation's future strategy.
This is not the occasion to discuss BSC's future in detail, if only because I have little to add to what I said on this subject on 9 November. My purpose, and that of the BSC, is to reach sensible decisions aimed at putting the corporation back on to the path to profitability while at the same time ensuring that it retains the capacity to respond readily to the likely level of demand from customers over the next few years.
I still hope to be able to report to the House before Christmas.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The Secretary of State's statement says nothing new about safeguards for the British steel industry, the future of which now hangs in the balance. In the past week, while the Secretary of State was discussing the matter in Europe, closures were announced at Craigneuk in Motherwell, with the loss of 427 jobs, and at the Round Oak plant at Dudley, with the loss of 1,286 jobs. Therefore, in the past week alone, over 1,700 steel workers have been made redundant and there has been no statement to the House on this issue.
Against this, would the Secretary of State agree that the Government have allowed manpower reductions to be overwhelmingly borne by this country? In 1981–82 the rate of change in the United Kingdom was minus 14·1 per cent., while in West Germany it was minus 5·1 per cent., in France minus 2·8 per cent., and in Italy minus 2·6 per cent. Is the Secretary of State prepared to allow this trend to continue? Will he tell the House whether our main competitors in the EC will restrict their exports into the United Kingdom? These exports are now over two thirds of our total steel imports, and our industry cannot bear them.
Has the Secretary of State agreed on the need for the most stringent round of steel plant closures undertaken by the EC, as reported in the financial press? What agreement has been reached on pricing policy, and what effect will this have on the United Kingdom?
In today's statement the Secretary of State kept saying that he hoped that something or other would happen, and that he hoped that the EC would do this or that. When will he take action instead of hoping? Will he explain further what will happen about imports from third countries into Europe? No positive action is proposed in the statement.
This statement makes it more imperative than ever that the Government protect our domestic industry. Therefore, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will not allow EC pressure to force another major closure of


any of the five large units, and that the Government will extend further finance to maintain our industry, irrespective of the EC?
Is not this new round of discussions on the steel crisis an admission that existing EC agreements on capacity reductions, production quotas and prices have broken down? What guarantee has the British steel industry that any new agreement will work more effectively?
This statement is full of hope, but we want action from the Government.

Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) recognises that last Thursday's meeting was an informal one to enable an exchange of views. It was not a full Council of the Community and therefore had no power to take decisions. This is a useful statement because the views of the nine of us who agreed with the general thrust of the Commission's proposals has strengthened its hand in ensuring that which is the central burden of the right hon. Gentleman's question, and which I have made clear—that this country will not make all the sacrifices alone. We have said before and I said it again in the statement, that I could no longer defend a position where we were the only country cutting capacity.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about major closures. However, I cannot at this stage give any further statement to the House on the progress of my discussions with the British Steel Corporation. I said that I hoped to be able to make a statement before Christmas.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Before the Queen's Park by-election.

Mr. Jenkin: I continue to hope that that will be the case.
It is not simply a question of doing these things out of deference to the Community. The British steel industry needs to be competitive and to be able to pay its way in the world. The British Steel Corporation needs to be returned to viability. That is the background to the discussions that we are having.
In relation to that, I remind the right hon. Gentleman what I said in my previous statement to the House on this subject. That is that it is the function of the board of the BSC under its chairman Mr. MacGregor to continue to take the steps that are necessary to restore the corporation to viability. I made it clear that I would not stand in the way of changes that the corporation wished to make, whether the changes involved reduction in capacity, as long as it is not a question of a major closure of one of the five main integrated plants.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about imports. The meeting on Thursday produced valuable proposals and suggestions from the Commission as to how the Community's regime to control imports can be strengthened. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am coming to this point.
One has to draw a distinction between imports from the Community and those from outside. With regard to imports from third countries, at the Foreign Affairs Council today a new regime was agreed that would reduce the proportion of trade supplied from outside still further. The figure agreed is now 12½ per cent. below the base line and, in addition, measures were agreed to provide for

much more and tighter enforcement of voluntary restraint agreements, in particular to prevent disruptive surges in imports.
Control of imports from Community countries is essentially a question of enforcing and policing the quota regime and the price regime by better policing and more inspectors. For instance, from 1 January 1983 individual countries will have the responsibility for policing prices at which products from steel stockholders will be sold, and we intend to do that.
There will be measures to prevent producers from disobeying the price rules and benefiting from operating aid. There will be procedures to extract from countries that are allegedly exceeding their quotas the fines that they are charged, and there is a battery of other measures. These matters are being discussed urgently in Brussels, and it is hoped that they will firm up the market for steel. Without that there is no hope for a profitable steel industry in Europe.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are two Supply debates today, both of which are important to the Opposition. Therefore I hope that questions and answers will be brief, so that I can call more hon. Members.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is because of the abuse of these arrangements that the Round Oak steelworks is under threat of closure, particularly when we have 40 per cent. imports of steel tubes? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that if the Round Oak steelworks closes, the political philosophy of Phoenix II is finished? Will the three-point survival programme now before his Department, which has the full agreement of the union, receive his urgent attention? Will he assure me that he will receive a deputation from Dudley in the immediate future?

Mr. Jenkin: I have much sympathy with those who work at the Round Oak steelworks. It had been hoped that the Phoenix II arrangement, to which my hon. Friend referred, would lead to a rationalisation of the engineering steels market and production, and that this plant might have been saved. In the event, such an agreement proved to be not possible and the managers of the Round Oak company therefore decided last week that it was not possible for it to continue trading.
I and a number of my colleagues are meeting representatives of the steel unions tomorrow, and we shall listen carefully to what they say. If my hon. Friend asks to bring a delegation from Dudley, either I or one of my Ministers will be very pleased to see it.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Minister aware that in the case of Craigneuk works in my constituency where, in his absence, the BSC management announced its proposal to close the bar mill, the BSC management has agreed to reconsider its proposal in the light of representations to be made by both staff and manual employees in the works? Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has supported their claim for an independent referee? Will the Minister undertake to examine those cases and reserve that decision at least to himself, and not allow it to be taken by BSC in ignorance of the economic assumptions that will be made in the case of the big five?

Mr. Jenkin: Whatever the decisions about the big five are likely to be, it remains a fact that United Kingdom capacity in the production of steel bars far exceeds actual and forseeable demand. It is a fact that the Craigneuk bar mill does not have modern facilities and has been incurring constant losses. As the hon. Gentleman will know, other operations on the site remain in being, saving 350 jobs. I must make it clear that it is the job of the management of the corporation to decide the management's affairs, including the rationalisation of production. The only matter about which the Government have been asked for guidance and on which we shall take joint decisions is if any of the decisions involve the closure of one of the five major integrated works.

Mr. John Grant: Will the Secretary of State be more specific and say whether the 1982 EC import quotas have been exceeded by certain East European and Latin American States, and what immediate action—not future proposals—is being taken to deal with that situation? Does he accept that the real cause of the plight of the United Kingdom steel industry is the lack of domestic demand, for which this Government have direct responsibility?

Mr. Jenkin: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that the appalling mistakes of the last decade in our industrial policy have left the customer base for steel in this country much weaker than it need be. That is the heart of the problem of the steel industry in Britain. It is the Government's intention progressively to put that right.
In answer to what the hon. Gentleman said about enforcing the voluntary restraint arrangements, the details that were agreed this morning in the Foreign Affairs Council—of which, no doubt, details will shortly be placed in the Library—will mean a much tighter administration of those arrangements—I stress that they are voluntary arrangements with third countries—and in particular will avoid what has caused so many problems in the past—the surge of imports in the first half of the year, which has caused great difficulties.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a widespread welcome for his robust defence of British interests and calls for urgent action on this important subject but that there is still concern, in the West Midlands in particular, that there is no commercial basis of competition for independent companies against the State monopoly, BSC, and that the closure of the Round Oak works is bound to lead to an increase in imports because no customers will be tied to a State monopoly supplier?

Mr. Jenkin: As my hon. Friend knows, efforts were made over many months to reach a rationalisation agreement—my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) referred earlier to the Phoenix II arrangement—which would involve both the British Steel Corporation and the private sector companies in the rationalisation of this sphere of steel production. Unhappily, that did not prove possible.. The negotiations were suspended, with the sad results which were apparent last week, with the closure of Round Oak. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the fact that this Government have made available substantial sums of money to help the private sector to rationalise its production. The original figure was £22 million; that has now been increased to £34

million. We have received a large number of applications for help under the private sector steel scheme, and I am very keen to have a substantial private sector steel industry in this country.

Dr. John Gilbert: Is the Minister aware of the wave of deep anger that is spreading across Dudley and the rest of the Black Country at this final end of steelmaking in the part of the country where the industrial revolution began? Does he realise that, with that decision, Dudley has lost, at a stroke, 10 times as many jobs as it gained through his enterprise zone? Does he know that only a couple of months ago the men who have given the company many years of loyal service and harmonious industrial relations were told that their jobs were safe? Does he realise that there have been no discussions with those men about alternative working practices, alternative schemes with fewer redundancies, or possibly a pay freeze? There have been absolutely no discussions. Will he insist that the BSC management has discussions at once?

Mr. Jenkin: I understand that the decision to close the Round Oak plant was on the recommendation of the management of that plant, and it was a recommendation that the British Steel Corporation could not see its way to reject. There is a substantial over-capacity for steel not only in this country but in the whole of Europe. Anyone who does not face that reality deludes himself and deceives those to whom he speaks. I am concerned primarily to see that our partners in the Community play their part in bringing the capacity in the Community into line with the foreseeable demand. That was the main purpose of the talks in Elsinore last week, on which I believe that we shall now see positive action by the Commission.

Sir Anthony Meyer: If there is to be effective sharing and sacrifice throughout the European Community, is it not essential that closures should be closely monitored and the share-out strictly enforced? Is it therefore appropriate for those who demand that our partners bear their share of sacrifices to complain that strong authority is needed to enforce this, necessarily involving allegations of interference with sovereignty?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend will remember that the arrangment that was negotiated and agreed in the Community was that all aids should be notified by the end of September this year, that they should be phased out by the end of 1984, that there should be no further State aids after that, and that those seeking to give State aids to their industries should notify the Commission of the reductions in capacity that they proposed to make. It has been made clear to member States that the reductions in capacity so far notified do not measure up to what is necessary to bring capacity into line with demand. It was acknowledged firmly at the same time that some countries have done a great deal more in this respect than others. Certainly we are one of those "some countries". It is my intention to see that the Commission enforces the rules as firmly as possible on those countries which have not done so.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Minister accept that the experience of the past four years does not justify us placing any faith whatever in the Community, and that the Government therefore have the responsibility to ensure that the public and private sectors of the steel industry survive and that, if they do survive and action is


taken, the surplus of which he speaks may be much smaller than is now thought? Does he accept that during the first half of this year, and since, the Government received a flow of detailed evidence from the industry, which should receive urgent attention, of cheating by Community countries and others, and that we cannot rely on the Commission to do that for which the Government should take responsibility?

Mr. Jenkin: That was precisely why I made it clear at Elsinore that the Commission should authorise member countries themselves to undertake the policing of the Commission rules, both on adherence to list prices and on the operation of quotas. That proposal is firmly on the table. I have made it clear to the House that Britain must have a viable steel industry both in the public and the private sectors. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts my assurance on that.

Mr. Roger Moate: My right hon. Friend said again that he does not intend that Britain should make all the sacrifices, but he did not tell the House of the powers that he has to ensure that we make no further sacrifices if, in the rapidly worsening position, the Commission does not take effective action on overproduction on the Continent, under-pricing and increased Continental imports to the United Kingdom. What contingency plans does my right hon. Friend have in those circumstances?

Mr. Jenkin: If the Community does not adhere to the rules that it has laid down, the arrangement will break down and individual countries will be driven to take in national measures—

Mr. Frank Dobson: They are doing it now.

Mr. Jenkin: —to achieve stability. I cannot stress too strongly how damaging that would be to the European steel industry, of which the British steel industry is part. It would be a most disastrous descent into protectionism and I hope that we can avoid it. That was the intention of Thursday's meeting.

Mr. Roy Hughes: In his statement this afternoon, is not the Secretary of State attempting to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, because our steel industry has been decimated whereas in other Western European countries, such as Italy, the industry has expanded in recent years? Can the Secretary of State confirm the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) that more than two-thirds of imports into Britain come from the Common Market? That does not include motor cars and washing machines, which have such a high steel content. When shall we tell our Common Market partners that enough is enough?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the best protection against imports is for our industry to become competitive. If the British steel industry were competitive up to world standards there would be no problem with competition from imports. We could hold our own in Britain and in export markets. Great progress has been made in restoring the British steel industry to competitiveness, but much more must be done.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call two further hon. Members from each side and then to move to the next statement.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members appreciate the fact that he told our European partners that we cannot make all the sacrifices because we have already made many? If there is no deal with Europe on this matter, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the British Steel Corporation must reduce its prices and that there will be a steel price war? The Government must then extend the losses of the corporation, which will threaten to put out of business some private steel manufacturers.

Mr. Jenkin: I agree with every word uttered by my hon. Friend.

Mr. James Tinn: Does the Secretary of State take the view that the long-term size and shape of the steel industry should not be determined only by short-term order book considerations? I am sure that he does. If we wait for effective action from Europe, will the Secretary of State accept the responsibility to ensure that the British steel industry is not subject to further cuts—which, far from being remedial surgery, would prove to be sheer butchery?

Mr. Jenkin: I have already made it clear in the House and elsewhere that it would be wrong to take major decisions about the configuration of steel plants in Britain on the basis of short-term market trends. A matter that we have examined at some length with the British Steel Corporation is the market prospects in the medium term in order to decide what is likely to be the capacity to meet not only the present but future demand. It is vital that we resolve the matter as correctly as we can. No one can wholly foretell the future, but we can do our best.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although I congratulate the Secretary of State on fighting so hard, may I ask whether he does not agree that under the European regime we would need an army of European steel inspectors, with a separate inspector chasing every sale room and tapping every telephone line, if the price regime were to hold up, bearing in mind the fact that there is no interest either to the producer or to the person who buys the steel in revealing the phoney discounting that is going on, and that the Secretary of State knows about? Does ny right hon. Friend realise that in Britain we have cut employment more than the rest of the European Community put together since the Government came to power? Is it not clear that Britain is being taken for a ride?

Mr. Jenkin: No, we are not being taken for a ride and I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that the substantial overmanning that became apparent in the British Steel Corporation would have required many job losses, irrespective of market levels.
As to price policing, I remind my hon. Friend that it is in the interests of the producers to maintain a reasonably stable price regime. They have every possible incentive to ensure that it is stable. If we are to quarrel about imports from overseas and to argue that they are dumped, it must be apparent that an anti-dumping action will not stand up if customers can prove that they can buy steel within the Community at those import prices. The matters hang together. If we wish to preserve the restraints on imports


from third countries, we must maintain a floor under prices product by product for steel produced and sold within the Community.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement will provoke anger and dismay among steel workers in my constituency? Does he accept that there is a problem with low-cost steel imports from Eastern bloc countries? What justification is there for sacrificing steel jobs in Manchester in order to preserve jobs in Eastern Europe?

Mr. Jenkin: One matter agreed at the Foreign Affairs Council this morning was that the Commission has confirmed its readiness to introduce quotas when problems arise through indirect imports from Eastern Europe. The matter has been deal with firmly.

Dr. John Cunningham: Given the serious momentum of the steel crisis, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will keep it apprised of the discussions that are continuing in Europe? As the Commission proposes during the next three years to close 50 millions tonnes of steel capacity—almost one-third of all steel-making capacity in Europe—will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House now that none of the five major plants in Britain will play any part in that reduction?

Mr. Jenkin: The estimated excess capacity to 1985 was 48 million tonnes. The Commission's proposed reduction is not as large as that but is between 30 million and 35 million tonnes. If we are forced to reach a conclusion that involves the closure of one of the five major integrated plants, that will not be because of Commission rules but because it will be the only way to restore the British Steel Corporation and to give it any hope of viability in the medium term. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are giving an assurance".] I am not. I am making it absolutely clear that those matters are still under study. I shall return to the House when there is anything further to report.

Britoil

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I wish to make a statement on the outcome of the offer of shares in Britoil.
The lists opened and closed at 10 am last Friday. Valid applications were received in respect of just under 70 million shares. They have been accepted in full at the minimum tender price of 215p per share. The balance of the underwritten portion of the offer for sale, some 185 million shares, will be taken up at the same price by the underwriters and sub-underwriters, who comprise some 500 pension funds, life offices and other investing institutions, who will hold the shares on behalf of their members, policy holders and shareholders.
Ninety-nine per cent. of all applications came from small investors and employees. There were a little over 35,000 applications for 2,000 shares or less, 90 per cent. of them being striking price applications. These will all be eligible for the small shareholder bonus subject to the terms and conditions set out in the prospectus.
Under the special arrangements made by the Government for employees of Britoil, 92 per cent. of eligible employees will hold a total of some half million shares between them. I will circulate a more detailed breakdown of the applications in the Official Report. Dealings in Britoil shares will open tomorrow. Following the sale, the Government will be left with approximately 49 per cent. of the share capital of Britoil.
The total share issue will raise a gross sum of £548 million. In addition, Britoil will shortly repay, with interest, a debenture of ¤88 million. Total gross proceeds will be approximately £640 million.
The latest estimate of the costs to be borne by my Department since preparations began in January up to the end of the current financial year is £11½ million, exclusive of VAT. This sum includes expenses incurred in connection with the scheme transferring assets to Britoil, as well as costs of the sale itself. Parlimentary approval to expenditure in connection with the main expenses of the Britoil sale will be sought in the Winter Supplementary Estimates. Pending that approval, the necessary expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the Contingency Fund.
In all, the total net proceeds from the disposal of Britoil are estimated to be in excess of £625 million.
Britoil has now been successfully privatised on eminently fair terms for the taxpayer, and I am sure that all sides of the House will want to wish this important new British company every success in the years ahead.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State has now been responsible for two acts of privatisation—Amersham, which was oversubscribed 23 times, and Britoil, which was undersubscribed by more than 70 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he is constantly accusing others of failing to understand the workings of the free market. How can he judge others when his own record is one of dismal failure?
Along with Mr. Shelbourne, the right hon. Gentleman has presided over one of the most sensational financial flops of recent times. One mistake is bad luck, two is sheer incompetence. The right hon. Gentleman has got his timing wrong. Is not his reliance on a fickle market—or,


as he put it, a "volatile" market—an absurd way to value the nation's assets? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that even on his own terms he had responsibility for ensuring that Britoil—his own creation—was a strong, soundly based company, yet shareholders, a small United Kingdom group, including merchant bankers, the institutions and the pension funds, after reviewing his statements, gave him only a 30 per cent. vote? Does he not accept that this is a vote of no confidence from the share-buyers, his own chosen constituents?
Is not the total of 35,000 small shareholders who purchased on Friday a pitifully small number, bearing in mind the fact that the whole nation used to own the shares? What percentage of 255 million shares is now held by small investors? The Labour Party has opposed the sale of these shares from the start. Does the Secretary of State not accept that his own over-confident salesmanship convinced small shareholders to buy shares at a price which will look very high tomorrow?
Does he not now accept that there must be a Select Committee inquiry into all the issues arising from the Britoil question and that such an inquiry should consider the recent report of the Public Accounts Committee? First, there should be a full debate on the Floor of the House on the privatisation of Britoil. Statements and applications under Standing Order No. 9 have their place, but before an inquiry there must be a debate in Government time—certainly well in advance of the sale of Wytch Farm oil and the British Gas Corporation's oil assets.
The sale of Britoil was no ordinary flop. This was supposed to be the showpiece of privatisation. Earlier this year, two Ministers honourably resigned over a misjudgment. The Secretary of State has misjudged privatisation twice—on Amersham and Britoil. The Lawson North Sea bubble has burst. There is no doubt in our minds that there is only one option open to the Secretary of State: he should resign.

Mr. Lawson: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I shall not resort to personal abuse. Rather, I shall confine my remarks to some of the points that he made.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the report of the Public Accounts Committee. I am happy to see the distinguished Chairman of that Committee in his place. I have made it clear all along that if the Public Accounts Committee wishes to undertake an inquiry into the sale of Britoil shares I shall be more than happy that it should do so. It might enable the right hon. Gentleman to be educated in these matters, which he clearly is not at present.
Less than a week ago, the Opposition complained that the shares would be sold too cheaply and that there would be a City rip-off. Now, when there is no City rip-off and when the underwriters are left holding a substantial proportion of the shares, they complain about that. A few weeks ago, they complained about the dreadful possibility of Ministers or their families subscribing to the shares. I suppose that we shall now be told that that should be made compulsory. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.
There is always a risk that a share issue will be undersubscribed. That is precisely why I insisted that the issue should be underwritten. It was underwritten, and

successfully so. The right hon. Gentleman could not understand why the share issue was to be underwritten—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: indicated dissent

Mr. Lawson: Yes, it is in Hansard. He said that it should not be underwritten at all. Now that the issue is underwritten, he knows precisely why—to ensure the success of the sale.
The right hon. Gentleman should also understand that there is a gap of nine or 10 days between the conclusion of the underwriting and the announcement of the share issue on the one hand and the final date for application on the other. During those nine or 10 days, there could be changes of sentiment in the market one way or the other. That is why the vast majority of share issues—not merely Government share issues but all share issues—are either substantially oversubscribed or undersubscribed. Nobody who understood the market would say that it is possible to predict precisely the price at which shares will be fully subscribed.
Labour Members are fond of quoting with approval the noble Lord Kearton. They appointed him chairman of BNOC, as it then was, and regard him as a great authority on such matters. When he was asked yesterday whether he thought the sale could have been better conducted he said:
Obviously it could have been managed differently, but I do not think it was managed badly at all.
He was then asked by the interviewer whether he would buy shares in Britoil, to which Lord Kearton replied:
I bought my maximum allocation. Of course I did.
I am sure that the small shareholders will not regret their puchase. I regret that there was not a full application, but I am sure that in future small shareholders will take the opportunity to buy further shares in the company. That would not be possible if it remained in State ownership, as Labour Members want.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome for the fact that, even though the issue was undersubscribed, the majority of this major British compay has been privatised? Is he further aware that the main reason it was undersubscribed was because of deliberate conspiracies among Labour Members to sabotage the scheme and to leak misleading information, thus deliberately undermining public confidence in a major British company?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the advice, which several Conservative Members gave him before the share offer, that it would have been preferable, as it will be on future occasions such as the privatisation of British Telecom, for such events to be made the subject of an offer for sale rather than a tender, which is clearly inapplicable and unsuccessful in offers of this size?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Opposition did their best to talk the issue down. They did so not just because they are opposed to this issue but because they are opposed to the whole privatisation programme. They hope thereby to prevent the privatisation programme, but they will fail to do so.
It is hard to say whether a fixed price issue would have been undersubscribed or not. Bearing in mind events in the oil share market, which caused all oil shares to fall by 10 per cent. or more between the completion of the underwriting and the final application, it is likely, in a period when the Indonesian Government announced a


reduction in the price of its oil, and fears were aroused in the City as a result of reports from Saudi Arabia, that a fixed price issue might also have been undersubscribed. In those circumstances, I suspect that it would have been. However, I fully accept my hon. Friend's consistent line on this matter.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Is it not distressing that less than 1 per cent. of the shares have been acquired by employees, and that tomorrow the small investors will take a hammering, although they acted loyally and patriotically in responding to the Secretary of State's appeals?
Is it not more alarming that foreign penetration will be all the more serious tomorrow when shares will be sought on the exchange? Should there not be some form of parliamentary scrutiny before any future privatisation scheme?

Mr. Lawson: As the House will be aware, this matter has been fully debated several times. Therefore, I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's complaint is. Nor do I understand his comments on foreign penetration. As for employees owning 1 per cent. of the company, that is 1 per cent. more than they did before the offer.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In an effort to protect the following debates, I shall call three more hon. Members from each side and then move on to the main business.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Would the Secretary of State be surprised if Labour Members started buying the shares now that they cost less? Will he acknowledge that BNOC, a State corporation, set the price of oil at $3 below the market price for Saudi crude in March this year, which annoyed Saudi Arabia and possibly caused that country to torpedo the flotation?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. There is no doubt that the interview with Sheik Yamani which appeared in a Kuwaiti newspaper on Thursday morning had an unsettling effect on oil shares. However, I have no reason to believe that that interview had anything to do with a desire to sabotage the Britoil sale. It was a pure coincidence that it came at an inopportune moment.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the difficulties of complying with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that he should resign is that, because of his displays in the last few weeks, he would not be able to recover his old job as writer of the "Lex" column in the Financial Times?
Will the Secretary of State concede that anybody who had spent any time analysing the oil market would have known of its uncertainty? The Saudi Arabians were sick of the Iranians, the Libyans and the Nigerians and there was bound to be uncertainty in the oil market. The Labour Party has continually said that in view of that uncertainty the Secretary of State should not sell this British asset. He should be thoroughly ashamed that he has gone through all this to sell the nation's assets to a few private shareholders.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman fails to remember, as do Labour Members generally, that the issue was successfully underwritten by a wide range of British institutions at a price satisfactory to the taxpayer.
The hon. Gentleman makes claims to omniscience. I make no such claims. It is not only Government share

issues that can be oversubscribed or undersubscribed, but private sector share issues too. The Government claim no special expertise. That is precisely why we believe that it is better for business and industry to be in the private rather than the State sector.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Have not the Opposition been more than usually hypocritical today? Should not those people who have complained about the level of underwriting be congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his decision to underwrite the issue? In view of the foresight now being shown by the Labour Party, should we not be grateful for their advice not to subscribe to the issue?

Mr. Lawson: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition have been wholly hypocritical, but I do not agree that that is anything unusual.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On what basis of comparative political morality does Lord Carrington resign his job but not this Secretary of State?

Mr. Lawson: Speaking purely personally, I deeply regret Lord Carrington's resignation.

Mr. Frank Dobson: He set too high a standard.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: As somebody who neither applied for nor underwrote the issue on the principle that I did not believe it right to do so, and as someone who at least understands the workings of the City, may I ask whether it is not amazing that the Secretary of State should be lampooned and a Select Committee of inquiry called for because he obtained too much for the taxpayer? Does that not show that the City does at times earn its money? It provided £548 million, which could not have been obtained otherwise. The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his courage and on what he has done. To call for a Select Committee of inquiry shows the hyperbole and hysteria of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees).

Mr. Lawson: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks and agree that the City proved itself to be extremely effective in helping to bring to the market the biggest new issue that the country has ever known. The City's institutions performed extremely well. My hon. Friend is also right to say that this issue shows how hypocritical were the Opposition's previous crocodile tears for the taxpayer.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will not the Secretary of State recognise that his incompetence has led to the mess over the sale of Britoil shares, that it will be known as "Lawson's folly" and that as a result of his actions Britain is the only oil producer in the free world to be without a national oil company and control over production? If the right hon. Gentleman does not do the honourable thing and resign, the country will demand that the Prime Minister should sack him for his actions.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is becoming even more absurd than most of his colleagues. If he has a crystal ball that enables him to forecast accurately 10 days or a fortnight in advance changes in sentiment and prices in the oil share market, or, for that matter, in any sector of the share market, he must be a very rich man.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: With regard to the Secretary of State's reference to our comments on underwriting—the


Chief Whip seemed to understand it at the time—may I remind him that we brought to his attention a report of the Public Accounts Committee, which said:
We are concerned that, in the course of this re-examination, the Treasury should look again at the practice of underwriting such sales … We therefore trust that the adoption for sale of publicly owned shares of this aspect of normal City practice will be very carefully re-examined.
Will the Secretary of State re-examine that practice before the Wytch Farm and British Gas Corporation shares are sold? The Secretary of State has put the blame on everyone except himself. We are clear about where the responsibility lies—it lies with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lawson: I have not blamed anybody. There is no cause for blame. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would want the record to be set straight. On 10
November, he said:
There is no need for underwriting."—[Official Report, 10 November 1982; Vol 31, c. 548.]
He cannot wriggle out of that. Britoil is now in the private sector and I hope that both sides of the House will wish it every success as a private sector company in the years ahead.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1357) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Thompson.]

OPPOSITION DAY

[IST ALLOTTED DAY]

Disabled People

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe): I beg to move,
That this House deplores the cut in the value of invalidity pensions and other cuts in public spending that hamper both the rehabilitation of disabled people and the prevention of disability; and calls upon Ministers to act consistently with the 'Charter for the 1980s' for disabled people worldwide, which the Prime Minister received and welcomed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on 11th November 1981.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Morris: The debate concerns needful people who, at the general election, were promised by the Prime Minister and her colleagues that they would be "singled out" for special help but who, instead, are the victims of the Government's unkindest cuts of all. The debate is overdue, yet it would never have been held if it had been left to the Government to arrange it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has again given disabled people priority over many other pressing claims on the very limited parliamentary time available to him. He has an entirely genuine concern to advance the aspirations of disabled people, and it is he who should be thanked by everyone who takes part in this debate for having enabled them to do so.
Our motion gives the House an opportunity to condemn a cut in the standard of living of some 620,000 invalidity pensioners and their families. It deplores what, by common consent outside the House, is a deplorable act of betrayal that has singled out chronically sick and disabled people, not for the special help that they were promised, but for special hardship. The motion also draws attention to other cuts in public spending that put obstacles in the way both of rehabilitating the disabled and preventing disability. They are equally deplorable cuts and the motion, very reasonably,
calls upon Ministers to act consistently with the 'Charter for the 1980s' for disabled people worldwide, which the Prime Minister received and welcomed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on 11th November 1981.
The Secretary of State's immediate predecessor, now Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), who carried the cut in the value of invalidity pensions through the House, said that it was an unpalatable measure. That was an understatment par excellence from a master of the art. In fact, it was a measure that made ours the only Government in the world to have marked the International Year of Disabled People by a gratuitous cut in the standard of living of disabled people.
For a childless couple, the loss in invalidity pension is £117 and, for a single person, £72,80 a year. To some people those amounts may not seem very great, but, as Disability Alliance and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, with seven other national organisations have pointed out in a pamphlet published today:
For people who are already on the breadline, every crumb counts.


That is not exaggerated language. Nor is the Disablement Income Group exaggerating in its message today to hon. Members about this debate, when it describes the abatement of invalidity pensions as a "cruel cut" and as a tax on disability to which it demands an immediate end.
Over the weekend, I had delivered to me by hand a dossier of cases from DIG about the extreme hardship caused by the cut in invalidity pensions. It is a dossier of distress that shows just how poor, needful and badly hurt are the victims of the cut. There is no time for me to detail individual cases, but the document is deeply moving and I am making it immediately available to the Minister for his comments. It shows that, under a Government who in a single day gave £1,400 million in tax cuts to the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers, Britain now has severely disabled people who have to choose between eating and heating.
The Government's excuse for imposing the cut was that they intended to make invalidity pensions taxable, that they would be taxed as soon as the necessary legislation could be prepared and that, meanwhile, the Secretary of State already needed the savings that would accrue from making them taxable. When the legislation was enacted, it was said, the cut in invalidity pensions would be restored. Nevertheless, there is still no sign of any legislation to tax invalidity pensions. I was told again only last week in a parliamentary reply that no date has yet been given for taxing them and, as hundreds of thousands of the poorest invalidity pensioners will still fall below the tax threshold even if their pensions become taxable, they are undeniably the victims of a blatant injustice.
Which hon. Member can possibly describe that as anything less than deplorable? Far from being singled out for special help. invalidity pensioners below the tax threshold must feel that they count for less than the "a" in "etcetera" among the Government's priorities.
What other cuts are causing the disabled hardship? Let me quote just three in relation to cash benefits. First, changes in the way that child dependency additions are now uprated have cut the incomes of invalidity pensioners with children by £1·85 a week per child. Secondly, the abolition this year of earnings-related supplement has cut the living standards of many people living on sickness and injury benefits. The average loss to the recipients of sickness benefit is £13 a week and the loss is even higher for disabled people living on injury benefit. Thirdly, as DIG's statement entitled "Disastrous Years for Disabled People" said:
… disabled people were already among the worst off on supplementary benefit and are now even worse off following the Government's 'simplification' of the scheme.
The very title of the statement, which contrasts the Government's promises with their performance, underlines the modesty of our motion today.
The statement dealt not only with cuts in invalidity pensions, supplementary and other cash benefits, but with local social services for disabled people. The latest figures for services provided under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 show that there have been swingeing cuts in community care since this Government came to power. To give just one figure, the number of telephones installed under the Act fell by a shocking 30·8 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1980–81.
In the debate on the "Charter for the 1980s" in another place on 17 November, Lord Trefgarne, speaking for the Government, referred to the importance of door-to-door

transport for many severely disabled people and the value of dial-a-ride services for those who are otherwise isolated in their homes. He said:
A number of these community-based mini-bus schemes have already sprung up and we are keen to encourage more."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 1982; Vol. 436, c. 593.]
Yet if severely disabled people are denied telephones, how can they possibly dial a ride? A valuable recent survey by OUTSET of disabled people in North Tyneside showed that two of the most essential needs of disabled people living at home are a telephone and transport facilities. I agree with Lord Trefgarne that dial-a-ride services are important, but more and more potential users are excluded by lack of a telephone. In this way disadvantage is piled on disadvantage for some disabled people, while those with one service can have others made available to them. I ask the Minister to comment on that in his reply.
Telephones and transport facilities are not, however, the only essential services. Home helps are deeply important and there is growing concern that some of the charges now being imposed are making it impossible for many disabled people to pay for the help they need if they are not to become hospitalised. There is concern also that, because of inadequate staffing levels, some local authorities are no longer complying with the law. In a letter I received only today from RADAR, it is stated:
In Trafford, for example, clients' home help hours have been cut although there has been no change in their circumstances.
As I know the Minister will appreciate, that is a very serious matter indeed. His advice about the effect of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, as he has told me by letter, is identical to the advice given to me as a Minister between 1974 and 1979—that a local authority is plainly breaking the law if it reduces or withdraws a service without diminution of need in the particular case. If in Trafford home help hours have been reduced without any change in the circumstances of the disabled people receiving the service, there is a clear onus on the Minister to act quickly and decisively to ensure that the law is upheld. I shall await his comments.
RADAR has also raised with me Liverpool's waiting list of some 400 disabled people for help with telephone installation and rental costs under the Act. Earlier this year the Secretary of State agreed to investigate, even although none of the people on the waiting list had been named. Since then, however, he has maintained that his powers can be used only when individuals have been identified and named. This is a matter that the Minister must now clarify and I ask him to do so as the debate proceeds.
I ask him to comment also on the extremely worrying returns of some of the local authorities whose cuts in services have been even more severe than those by councils generally. Hertfordshire's cut in the number of telephone installations, for example, was 40·6 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1980–81. In the same two years, it cut the number of home adaptations for disabled people in council tenancies by 55·7 per cent., while it has provided no holidays under the Act for several years. Here, surely, is a case for inquiry.
Again, we ought to be told why Cambridgeshire, which is now reported to be planning to raise charitable funding to run its social services, has only 0·5 per cent. of its population registered as disabled, while surrounding


counties have at least four times that percentage. Norfolk has 2·5 per cent. registered, Suffolk 2 per cent., Bedfordshire 3·4 per cent. and Leicestershire 2·2 per cent.
There are a number of other specific issues I must raise with the Minister. The first concerns the now wholly scandalous level of unemployment among disabled people, which is roughly twice that of the work force generally. In some parts of Britain, as the all-party disablement group were told by representatives from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, unemployment among registered disabled people is now as high as 80 per cent. What is the Minister's comment on that?
In special housing, too, there have been major cuts in provision. Wheelchair and mobility housing starts plummeted from 8,000 in 1979 to around 2,400 in 1981. That was another sharp blow at the rehabilitation, indeed the very independence, of thousands of disabled people. In finding somewhere to live, as in seeking jobs, the disabled are pushed to the back of the longest queues in Britain.
With regard to access to the built environment, as the Minister knows, there has been strong feeling among representatives of disabled people about what they see as dilatoriness in moving towards a satisfactory implementation of section 6 of the Disabled Persons Act 1981. The Government said that implementation must be quick, cheap and non-bureaucratic. Yet they proposed that a sub-committee of the British regulations advisory committee, based in Marsham Street, should adjudicate on each and every case in which the requirements of the British Standard are not met. As Peter Mitchell for RADAR has written to me:
If under these conditions section 6 were to fulfil any of our hopes, there would inevitably be delays, increased costs and additional administrative procedures.
There will certainly be others wanting to intervene in the debate on this important issue, including the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), and I trust the Minister will be able to end all the uncertainty and frustration there has been in a helpful and definitive statement to the House today.
The Minister is also aware of the very keen anxiety on both sides of the House to improve the prevention of disability. Breast cancer is the major cause of death in women aged over 35. It kills more than 12,000 women in the United Kingdom every year. The early diagnostic unit at the Royal Marsden hospital screens 10,000 women every year for less than a quarter of the cost in the screening units of other hospitals. The Royal Marsden unit has a detection rate of breast cancer double that of comparable units and the Government's decision to allow its closure is rightly and widely condemned. If the Government are serious about prevention, how can they possibly defend that decision?

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Perhaps I can save the right hon. Gentleman a few words. The Government have taken no such decision. The governors have decided that they wish to close the screening unit. The Government have stepped in to keep the unit open. They have asked for a report on the proposal and have come to no decision. The right hon. Gentleman is completely beside the point. The Government have kept the unit open so far while we review the proposal.

Mr. Morris: The Minister knows of the deep anxiety on both sides of the House about the future of the unit. He will have an opportunity, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to intervene later in the debate. I hope that he will be able to make a definitive statement on the future of a unit which is extremely important to tens of thousands of women in this country.
How can the Government refuse to give more than the £100,000 that they recently announced to delay the closure of beds at Great Ormond Street? They have been told very clearly by medical staff at the hospital that some children will die and others will become permanently disabled if the bed closures take place. They are also aware of the concern, both here and outside the House, about the future of Tadworth Court hospital for sick children.
In a message Tim Yeo, the director of the Spastics Society, has told me that his society's concern to see that Tadworth Court stays open is because, by offering short-term respite to them and their families, it makes it possible even for some of the most severely disabled children to remain in the community. I am sure that the Minister shares that concern and that the whole House will be grateful for his comments on the future of both Great Ormond Street and Tadworth Court.
The Government often talk as if all the damage that they have done to the Welfare State can be made good by a voluntary sector that has unlimited funds. Yet at least DHSS Ministers must know of the daunting problems caused for charities by the heavy new burden imposed on them by this Government's doubling of VAT and of their very keen sense of grievance. The Spastics Society lost nearly £350,000 in unrecoverable VAT last year alone and, as I have been told in a letter from the society since this debate was announced:
Every penny of this money was given by the public to provide services for disabled people and not to swell the coffers of the Treasury.
Brian Rix, speaking for MENCAP, has talked of being "clobbered" for trying to run a service for charity. Other leaders of voluntary organisations have spoken as strongly to the same effect. Their verdict is that, much apart from assisting charities to do more, present Treasury Ministers would have mugged the Good Samaritan himself. Does the Minister accept the justice of the case that the charities have made against VAT, and, if he does, what representations has he made, or will he be making, to the Treasury in their support?
The motion that I moved in the House on 3 July 1981, which was unanimously approved, urged the Government to initiate discussions with all the organisations of and for disabled people before the end of 1981, on a programme of action to maintain the impetus of IYDP in the years ahead.
That was not done and the House must now be told why the Government failed to act on its resolution. The Minister may reply that the Government produced the document "IYDP and After—The UK Response", and that it sets out not only what happened during the IYDP but the Government's plans for the future. In the view of many of the relevant organisations, however, the document does nothing of the kind. While it rightly pays tribute to the voluntary sector, the document skates over cuts in benefit and fails even to mention the resolution approved by the House, or that most disabled people in Britain were worse off at the end of the International Year of Disabled People than they were at the beginning, due directly to the


Government's policies. As to the future, the document talks glibly about rationalising and improving the present structure of benefits "as resources become available." That is from a Government who by next year will have cut the social security budget by £2 billion at the expense, among other vulnerable groups, of large numbers of chronically sick and disabled people.
Most organisations of and for disabled people want a discussion document from the Government on a disablement costs allowance. They want, as the "Charter for the 1980s" envisages, a 10-year development plan to deal in order of priority with the long unfinished agenda of measures that are still needed further to improve the well-being and status of disabled people.
They want it to include an end to the invalidity trap that ensnares and impoverishes so many long term sick and disabled people, the abolition of the "household duties test", the award of non-contributory invalidity pension to married women on the same terms as to other disabled people, improvements in the invalid care allowance, steps towards a partial incapacity benefit and all the other measures which, as the Minister knows from his and my meetings with the all-party disablement group, are given high priority.
A letter that I have received from Peter Large, the Disablement Income Group's parliamentary spokesman, states:
As Chairman of the World Planning Group that drafted the 'Charter for the 1980s' you must be as disappointed as we are that there has been little or no action on it here in the year since it was presented to the Prime Minister on 11 November, 1981.
We are worried that there is no sign of a comprehensive national plan for achieving any of the main proposals of the Charter. Without a coherent plan, we risk the introduction of changes which are mere reactions to emotional or fashionable appeals or are politically opportunist measures that will not stand the test of time and may make further progress more difficult.
That is a perceptive comment. The charter very strongly emphasises the fact that planning is crucial to making life better for disabled people.
Its whole purpose is to ensure that IYDP was not just last year's good cause, but the start of a new era for the world's 500 million disabled people and their families.
The figure of 500 million may come as a surprise to some people, just as it is not widely enough known that we in Britain have 5½ million disabled people. Even that figure does not, however, tell the whole story, for the problems of disability affect vast numbers of people who are not themselves disabled. The parents of a disabled child and the woman with a disabled husband are deeply involved, as are the children of a disabled parent and the man with a disabled wife. Their lives, like those of countless millions more, are profoundly affected by disability in the family.
That is why the "Charter for the 1980s" put so much emphasis on the need to think in terms of the disabled family. It also explains the United Nation's estimate that no less than 25 per cent. of the world's population is involved in the problems of disability, either directly as disabled people or through family.
That seemed to me to be an exaggeration when I went to open the United Nations debate in New York in March 1979, on what would be the goals of the International Year of Disabled People. But in fact a Gallup survey, commissioned by the BBC and New Society to mark the IYDP, found that in the United Kingdom no less than 29 per cent. of people have a disabled person in their families.

Much apart from being an exaggeration, the United Nations figure was thus shown to be an understatement in the case of this country. In this debate we are not, therefore, dealing with the problems of a tiny minority but with matters of deep concern to almost one in three of the British people.
It was as Britain's then Minister for the disabled that I opened the United Nations debate on the goals of IYDP and was invited by Rehabilitation International to chair the world planning group that drafted the "Charter for the 1980s" for presentation to all heads of Government. Its text was reviewed over a two-year period at national and international conferences in every region of the world and, in the words of Norman Acton, the secretary-general of Rehabilitation International, it is based on
the most extensive international consultation ever undertaken in the fields of the prevention of disability and the rehabilitation of disabled people.
The charter makes over 40 recommendations for action at the community, the national and the international levels. They derive from four main aims, each of equal importance:

"1. To save as many people as possible from becoming disabled by maximising the prevention of disability.
2. To reduce the handicapping effects of disability by the provision of adequate rehabilitation services.
3. To ensure that disabled people are a part of and not apart from society and that they can participate fully in the life of their communities.
4. To promote full public awareness of the problems of disabled people and of their right to social equality."

To match precept with practice, the charter calls upon every Government to work out a comprehensive 10-year plan for the achievement of these aims. Unfortunately, that has not been done in Britain. Nor is there any sign that the Government intend to implement this centrally important recommendation of a document which, as Lord Trefgarne said in another place last week, the Prime Minister so "warmly welcomed" when it was presented to her in Downing Streeet a year ago.
In fact, the British Government are acting not in fulfilment, but in flat contradiction of most of the aims of the charter. For example, how can the closure—if it is to be closed—of the early diagnostic unit at the Royal Marsden, or the Government's failure to respond more positively to the Select Committee's report on perinatal and neonatal care even conceivably be consistent with the charter's aim of maximising the prevention of disability? More generally, how can the Government's reaction to and inaction over the Black report be said to meet the charter's first aim?
On the second aim, how does the Government's cut of one-third in the number of disablement resettlement officers help in rehabilitating disabled people? Does it not strongly conflict with the second of the charter's aims for there to be parts of the United Kingdom where today four-fifths of employable disabled people are on the dole? Disabled people do not want to depend on the dole, but they do want the dignity of becoming taxpayers.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: One of the reasons why the Government have closed hospitals and are refusing to assist many groups of disabled people is that they want the money for other purposes. Today's press featured an example. The Government are to pay up to 15 per cent. more to certain board chairmen earning about £35,000 a year. That is scandalous and shows where the Government's priorities lie.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend is on an important point. I shall deal with it later. It is very much a matter of political will and priorities.
The charter's third aim is flatly contradicted by the drastic cut in special housing provision for disabled people during the present Government's term of office and by the cuts in services provided under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. As of now, only 9 per cent. of local authorities can meet the Government's recommended number of 12 home helps per 1,000 of the population over 65.
With regard to the charter's fourth aim, was it not a major setback to their hopes of more social equality for disabled people to see the principal recommendations of the report of the committee on restrictions against disabled people so brusquely rejected? The recommendation called for legislation to end discrimination in education, employment, transport, property rights, insurance and the provision of goods, facilities and services, civic duties and membership of associations and clubs. But it was rejected by the Minister even before many who are active in the organisations of and for disabled people knew that CORAD's report had been published.
Had it not been for a decision some weeks later by the officers of the all-party disablement group, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), to hold a press conference to breathe new life into that valuable report, it would have been ministerially smothered at birth. If that was not the Minister's intention, he certainly fooled the media. Therapy, a specialist journal that enjoys the respect of both sides of the House, headlined its report of the Minister's statement:
Call for 'Fair Deal' Law for Disabled Thrown Out.
The Minister constantly says that the resources—this is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised—have not been available for the Government to achieve all they wanted to do for disabled people. But that is just not acceptable from a Government, one of whose very first acts was to give huge tax cuts to the richest taxpayers. Furthermore, only the week before last, the Chancellor told the House clearly where his preferences lay for releasing considerable resources from the Treasury.
As the charter shows, the problem is basically one not of resources but of political will and priorities. In almost every country, even, sadly, in the developing world, too much is spent on weapons that can destroy and disable and too little is spent on disabled people. If only 1 per cent. of what is now spent on armaments were to be spent instead on prevention and rehabilitation, the lot of disabled people would dramatically improve. That is why we must insist that the Government's retreat from their pledges to disabled people, and from the aims of the world charter they so readily espoused, is due not to any lack of resources but to choices they have consciously made in favour of other preferences.
I take pride in the fact that the Labour Government's spending on cash help alone for chronically sick and disabled people rose from £474 million in 1974 to £1,574 million in 1979. It was an unprecendented increase that more than trebled our expenditure on cash benefits. Again, our spending on centrally provided services for disabled people almost trebled. In real terms, they were substantial improvements and they were achieved in economic conditions of great difficulty.
The Labour Government quite genuinely singled out the disabled for special help. That is our credential in this debate. Even when public spending in almost every other area had to be cut back, there was rapidly increasing expenditure on new help for disabled people. The increase of £1,100 million in cash benefits made many important advances possible, but it was not nearly enough. Much more needed to be done and even the introduction of the new and comprehensive income scheme to which we pledged ourselves in 1979 would by no means have brought the millenium for disabled people.
The extra help that is sought by disabled people is not for the provision of luxuries but for the achievement of more equality and social justice for people for whom disability often also involves poverty and humiliation. There is ultimately no gain in depriving disabled people of the help that they need to enable them to live independent lives. The costs of driving them into hospitals and other instititions are much higher than those of community support services. That is fully recognised by the "Charter for the 1980s" which urges every Government to accept that the priority of the claims of disabled people must rank among the highest.
The type of society that the charter wants to create is not one where there is pity but one where there is genuine respect for disabled people and where they can enjoy the same rights as all humanity—to grow and to learn, to work and to create, to love and to be loved. That is the eloquent message of a document that is also intensely practical. It is a message that neither this nor any other Government must be allowed to forget. I commend the motion to the House.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the efforts made by Her Majesty's Government, despite prevailing economic difficulties, to protect and develop services and benefits available for disabled people and welcomes the United Kingdom's commitment to carrying forward the aims of the International Year of Disabled People.
I welcome the opportunity that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has given the House to debate disability. It will come as no surprise to him that I am unable to support the terms of the motion as it has been tabled. As a result, an amendment that more adequately reflects the truth of the Government's attitude towards the disabled has been tabled.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the International Year of Disabled People. It started in an atmosphere of great scepticism but it is now generally agreed that it was probably the most successful of all international years. Several Governments' Departments were involved, the media gave it great prominence and voluntary organisations set to with a will. The Government are determined to maintain the momentum of IYDP. They are determined to keep its goals alive in our minds, not only in Britain but world-wide. That is the message of our publication "IYDP and After: the UK Response" which appeared in July and which the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to disparage. Besides outlining many of the activities of the year, the document sets out some of the Government's wider plans for the future development of services.
I also welcome the initiative of the "world Charter for the 1980s", in which the right hon. Gentleman played an important part, which is directed to the same ends.
I shall now deal with the criticisms that have been made. It has been said that it is all very well talking about a follow-up to the IYDP, but are the Government putting their money where their mouth is? That is to paraphrase the Opposition motion. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the realities. When he occupied my office I know that he was frustrated time and again in seeking to promote objectives that he believed were necessary. He was unable to introduce a comprehensive disability benefit. Nor did the Government of which he was a member make any financial proposals for advancing such a benefit. Nor did he find it possible to extend the non-contributory invalidity pension to married women on the same terms as to men and single women. Nor was he able to include elderly people in the mobility allowance scheme.
I do not disparage the right hon. Gentleman because he was unable to see those objectives through. He, like us today, realised that the country faces a world recession. Moreover, none of us can do as much we would like. I have never made any bones about that. Until the economy is back on its feet, we will not be able to make the improvements for disabled people that we would like to make.
Nevertheless, I see no reason to be ashamed of the progress that has been made. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's criticism, the fact is that—and I take pride in it—the Government have increased spending on cash benefits for long-term sick and disabled people. Expenditure on those benefits in 1981–82 was 5 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1978–79. I shall not predict the outcome in real terms for the present financial year but I estimate cash expenditure of £3·1 billion as compared with £2·7 billion in 1981–82 and £1·7 billion when the right hon. Gentleman left office. That is not a discreditable record by the Government.
We take pride in the fact that we have increased these benefits in real terms. Everyone has to remember that it is not Government money that we are spending. It is money provided by taxpayers and national insurance contributors. We have to live within their means. We are ensuring that people who depend on social security benefits, and especially the disabled with whom we are concerned in this debate, continue to receive a generous share of the nation's resources.
In his criticism, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe made great play of cuts in social service expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman trotted out a number of examples relating to particular services. Although personal social services expenditure has grown by 7 per cent. or so over the past three years, authorities are budgeting for a further 2 per cent. of real growth. It is for the local authorities to determine their priorities for expenditure in this sphere. The Government have always encouraged them to protect the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society.
It is worth saying that expenditure on residential care for younger disabled people rose by nearly 7 per cent. in 1980–81, on day and training centres by over 1 per cent. and on residential care for the mentally handicapped by nearly 9 per cent. I do not pretend that there were increases across the board. For example, spending on aids and adaptations fell over the three years to 1980–81, although the number of cases assisted rose by 10 per cent.
Those who accuse the Government of presiding over a gross decline in service provision for disabled people paint

a picture that does not reflect the facts. We should like to do still more as and when the economy permits. But the record is a good one.
The right hon. Gentleman has made much of the abatement of invalidity benefit. I should like first to repeat the unequivocal commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on a number of occasions. When invalidity benefit is brought into tax, the rates of the pension will be realigned with those of the retirement pension. That is a firm commitment. When the benefit can be brought into tax is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nevertheless, the Government have demonstrated the reality of that commitment by restoring, at a cost of £6 million, the abatement on the invalidity allowance.
The effect of the abatement on individuals has to be seen in perspective. Although it will vary according to the personal circumstances of each individual, our best estimate is that, were the abatement to be restored now and the benefit brought into tax, almost all invalidity pensioners would be liable for tax. From the end of this month, an invalidity pensioner with a wife and two children could be receiving a total income of £94·39 a week. If the abatement were restored that would rise by just £2 a week. The cost of restoring the abatement would be in excess of £50 million a year. Hon. Members must remember that invalidity benefit as a whole is not abated. The child dependency allowance, a sizeable £7·95 a week per child, and the additional component of up to £9·59 a week have never been affected by the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980.
I have already stated that the abatement of the invalidity allowance has been restored. Other benefits to disabled people are not affected by abatement. A number of invalidity pensioners will benefit from attendance allowance and mobility allowance. The mobility allowance has been taken out of tax by the Government.
The Opposition motion refers to prevention. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health intends to speak about some aspects of prevention later in the debate. I shall only say now that it is a major priority in the Government's health policy. Far from there being a case for deploring what has been done, we can point to encouraging progress. The past three years have seen an increase in the uptake of vaccination against diseases such as rubella and polio. The number of perinatal deaths has, for the past two years, fallen faster than at any time since statistics were first collected. On the roads, the latest figures show a further decline in deaths and injuries, despite an increase in the number of vehicles. The new seat belt legislation should help to reduce the number still further.
Many hon. Members will know of the Government's initiatives towards the end of IYDP in convening an international seminar at Leeds Castle on the prevention of disablement. This was in recognition of the great importance that we attach to the subject. It called for a world-wide programme of immunisation, improved nutrition and primary health care. I am pleased to say that this was very well received internationally. The declaration issued by members of the seminar was incorporated into the world programme of action approved by the United Nations General Assembly last week. Even if Opposition Members do not appreciate what is being done by the Government, it is certainly appreciated by other countries.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rossi: There is little time for this debate and I must progress. A great deal of ground has to be covered.
The Opposition motion accuses the Government of hampering the rehabilitation of disabled people. I deny this outright. Ever since their establishment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) Conservative Governments have encouraged the demonstration centres, which have been set up around the country. There are now 27 such centres—the most recent was designated last month—and two further applications for designation are being actively pursued.
We have also recognised the key contribution made by the remedial professions. I take one example. In order to boost the numbers undergoing training in occupational therapy, I decided this academic year to increase the number of new students we were supporting from 551 to 581. Health authorities followed our example by sponsoring a further 54 new students.
A particularly encouraging venture, and an example of how initiatives started in IYDP are being followed up, is the joint DHSS-RADAR project to set up a number of communication aids centres around the country. These will display, evaluate and provide aids for speech-impaired people—a section of the disabled community which has, up to now, suffered more than its fair share of neglect. This project demonstrates both how fruitful the partnership between the voluntary and public sector can be, and also the contribution that high technology can make towards improving the lives of disabled people.
I hope that I have answered the points contained in the Opposition motion. I wish now to discuss how the various Government Departments are playing their full part in carrying forward the aims of IYDP. This is Information Technology Year. One area in which the Government are keen to encourage investment in, and growth of, new technology is the provision of equipment for the disabled. The Department of Industry has set aside £2½ million during this year to be used on the "information technology and the disabled" initiative. It has recently announced that its contribution in 1983 will be larger.
A number of special projects have been launched as part of that initiative, a major project being work units for the disabled. Those work units enable disabled people who cannot leave their homes to work from home for a company or organisation. Six of the work units have already been commissioned. The scheme has recently been extended to provide a further 50 units.
The Department of Industry has also been engaged in providing funds to speed the introduction and acceptence of new aids for the disabled. Many aids are now in use that otherwise would have languished through lack of funds. Data bases are being evolved, which will help to rationalise the mounds of information collected by the many charities and organisations representing the disabled.
The Department of Transport has been working alongside British Rail and the National Bus Company to further initiatives commenced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health when they were in that Department. Those initiatives not only make it easier for disabled people to use public transport but encourage more flexible

possibilities for door-to-door transport and help disabled people to overcome some of the obstacles that they face in learning to drive their own cars.

Sir Paul Hawkins: Disabled people have great difficulty getting into taxis. Has that matter been considered? I am not disabled, but sometimes I have difficulties getting into a taxi. I hit my head on the roof or step up too high.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Research has been carried out by the Department of Transport into vehicle design, especially on access to vehicles. A protoype new taxi is on the road, which eases the difficulties that my hon. Friend mentioned. It provides access for people in wheelchairs.
The Department of Transport has given a grant to Community Transport for three years to advise anyone who wishes to provide transport for the disabled. An audio-visual presentation on "Dial-a-Ride" schemes for disabled people has been launched and seminars have been run, mostly with voluntary groups.
A disabled people's motor show is being arranged for May 1983. It includes assessment facilities for disabled people who want to learn to drive. There is research into development of electronic aids for disabled people for mobility purposes. For example, a talking bus stop will be on trial in the Bristol area in January. I have already mentioned research into vehicle design. There is also development of textured surfaces of pavements for wheelchair users and the visually handicapped. Therefore, the Department of Transport is responsible for a range of initiatives to help the disabled. It is looking to the future.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe referred specifically to employment. Both the Government and the Manpower Services Commission are committed to maintaining the level of assistance that is provided for people. The MSC offers a wide range of services and schemes to help disabled people to get jobs. About 16,000 people attend rehabilitation courses each year. More than 4,000 complete training courses for open employment. Last year more than 35,000 disabled people found work through their local jobcentre. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's censures were not justified.
The MSC provides other financial and practical assistance, for example help with aids, travel costs and adaption of business premises, to enable disabled people to carry out their jobs. The "Fit for Work" campaign continues to make employers aware of the value of what the disabled have to offer as employees and to give them equality of opportunity.

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North): Will the Minister confirm that there will be no further attacks on the 3 per cent. quota for disabled people in industry. Do the Government intend to maintain it or even to improve it?

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman knows that that matter was dealt with recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He said that he was shelving the MSC report on the quota scheme. I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend has said on the matter.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rossi: Not for the moment.
In housing, disabled people have been making increasing use of improvement grants, which are available to them on more generous terms than hitherto, to help them to adapt their homes. It is notable that when overall activities on local authority improvement fell slightly, the number of dwellings that authorities have adapted for disabled tenants rose.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Will the Minister give the statistics for the adaptation of people's homes in the local authority and housing association sectors? What action has been taken by both the Minister and his hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction to make sure that section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 is operated in practice? Will the Minister give us figures for the provision of new houses for disabled people—either mobility or wheelchair housing?

Mr. Rossi: No figures are available from the Department of the Environment. They can be produced by the end of the debate if the right hon. Gentleman wishes. If not, I shall ensure that he receives a letter containing the statistics that he seeks.
The Education Act 1981 will come into effect on 1 April 1983. It will continue the move towards the integration of disabled and other children so far as is compatible with the aim of enabling all disabled children to be educated to their full potential.

Mr. Clement Freud: What is the financial provision for the implementation of the 1981 Act?

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman must refer to the Department of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, which will give him the figures. He will know that it is a long-term project, because schools cannot be adapted and changed overnight.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that Mrs. Mary Warnock, the prime author of the report that led to the 1981 Act, has said that the £3·7 million spent on the Government's assisted places scheme would go a long way towards helping schools to adapt to meet their obligations under the 1981 Act?

Mr. Rossi: I am sure that any money that can be made available will be of great assitance towards that project.
The message of IYDP was not directed at the Government alone. The Government alone cannot achieve its goals. That is a task for the whole community. There are things that the Government and the statutory sector as a whole cannot do as effectively as the voluntary sector. Our aim is to encourage the work of voluntary organisations wherever we can. Last year my Department alone gave £2¼ million in grants to disability organisations.
One of the most outstanding developments in community care for disabled people is the crossroads care attendant schemes. The Government have taken every opportunity to encourage that development. This year the Department's grant was increased by 20 per cent. from £25,000 to £30,000. Such schemes are now being extended to care for mentally handicapped people. The Department has awarded crossroads a further £30,000 to match funds that are being provided in three areas to set up schemes. The number of local crossroads schemes has increased dramatically since the start of IYDP and that

rapid growth has continued, with 44 schemes in existence and many more in the pipeline. About 2,000 disabled people benefit from crossroads schemes.
The Government are placing more emphasis on preventing the admission of disabled people to residential care and encouraging schemes that provide support for people caring for disabled people in the community. The Association of Carers has been given a grant of £5,000 for 1982–83 to help it establish a network of counselling and self-help groups for people caring for dependants who are physically disabled or elderly.
As we recently announced, we are also continuing the "Opportunities for Volunteering" scheme throughout the whole of next year. It is not restricted to disability work, but some projects in that field benefit directly and the scheme as a whole gives disabled people a chance to participate in other areas of service provision. That, too, is extremely important.
Our close links with the voluntary sector—I have discussions with a great many organisations of and for disabled people in my work—are also an invaluable channel for hearing the views of disabled people on planned developments. I regard that process as an important part of policy formulation.
I could recite many more details of the way in which we have assisted voluntary organisations.

Mr. Freeson: How much money?

Mr. Rossi: As I have told the House, it is a total of £2¼ million. Although the Opposition disparage such sums, they are more than welcome by the voluntary organisations to help them carry out their work. The Opposition wish to pour money down the drain through the bureaucracy. Our methods are far more effective in helping.
I hope that I have shown that the motion cannot be accepted. I freely concede that we cannot do as much as we would wish. Our first priority must be to get the economy on a firmer footing.
Against that background, I have no reason to be ashamed of the progress that we have made towards improving the quality of life of disabled people. I have demonstrated how that aim is being actively pursued across the breadth of government. No one can pretend that the great goals of IYDP—prevention, participation, integration—will be achieved overnight. That would not happen even if we had all the money in the world. But they are writ large in all our policies for disabled people. I am determined to continue moving towards them and nearer to the day when the idea that there is a group of people in our society whose interests need to be taken up in parliamentary debates will be an anachronism.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): An important debate is to follow and unless speeches are brief some right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in that debate may be disappointed.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The Government's failure to deal with the problems of disabled people cannot be glossed over. The Minister tried to gloss over the Government's dismal record.
We are debating the fact that millions of disabled people in Britain are getting a raw deal and are suffering unnecessarily. They do not want glib words; they want


cash, services, jobs and rights, and they are not getting them. They need a bold and imaginative new approach to their problems.
The Government tinker with trifles. The Minister said that he could go on to recite more detail, but he only dealt with details. He mentioned the increase in the mobility allowance. We often hear about the increase and about taking the allowance out of tax. He has also said that an important feature of the Government's policy was doubling the blind person's allowance, and he also mentioned extending the invalidity care allowance to non-relatives.
First, we should consider what has not been done by the Government. They are guilty of a sleight of hand in their approach to the problems of disabled people—"Now you see it, now you don't." The Government have abolished many benefits. They have abolished the invalidity pensioner's link with earnings, which deprives them of the possibility of real increases in their living standards; they have abolished the exceptional needs payment for disabled people who are not drawing supplementary benefit; they have abolished the earnings-related supplementary benefit for recipients of sickness benefit; and, incredibly, they have abolished easy access to medical prescriptions by increasing the charge from 20p to £1·30. Against that background, the Minister's claims lose their sparkle, if they ever had any.
Secondly, we should scrutinise the actual measures that the Minister mentions. The Minister chooses the increase in the mobility allowance as a glittering symbol of what the Government have done for disabled people. When the Prime Minister is asked what the Government have done for disabled people, her reply is always that the allowance has been increased and extended to more people. Of the 4 million, or 5 million, disabled people—my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) gave the figure as 5 million—fewer than 220,000 receive mobility allowance. The Minister is boasting about a marginal improvement affecting only one in 18 of the disabled. If the massive rise in petrol costs is taken into account, the increase is minimal.
The Minister also claims that the blind allowance is being doubled. Only 128,000 blind people are registered—one in 31 of the disabled. In fact only 30,000 of them benefit from the increase in the tax allowance, so only one in 40 is being helped in that way.
The extension of the invalid care allowance to non-relatives simply accentuates the indefensible injustice of failing to give the allowance to housewives and cohabitees. It is no excuse to say that my right hon. Friend did not do that. He did an awful lot, and he quoted the figures. Married women and cohabitees should now be paid for looking after severely disabled people.They do the same job as those who get the allowance. The argument that the income of married women is not important is quite bogus. Fifty per cent. of those women are in the labour force, so the loss of their income and pay packet is a major cause of family poverty.
Despite the gloss applied by the Minister in a speech which concentrated on minute details, the three and a half years of the Government's labour for the disabled has produced nothing significant to be proud of. Their labour has produced a mouse, or really a series of emaciated

mice. There is no sign that the Secretary of State intends to honour the promise made in the Conservative manifesto in 1979:
Our aim is to provide a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability, so that more disabled people can support themselves and live normal lives.
I discussed that quotation with various disablement groups. They were very impressed by it at the time, but they are not impressed now—they are depressed about the Government's failure.
The Minister referred to economic difficulties. We should try to understand those difficulties, but the Government should remember those same economic difficulties when they hand out gifts to their wealthy friends. They should also bear in mind the words of the Association of Directors of Social Services:
To suggest to those in need of help that they must wait until the rest of society is rich enough not to notice the sacrifice needed to provide aid is insulting … Anyone can afford to be generous when they are wealthy.
The Government ought to accept the association's message, and with it the need for a number of constructive steps. First, disabled people in Britain need a rational, comprehensive income provision. That is the responsibility of the Government. The Government should abolish the infamous poverty trap for invalidity pensioners and give the invalid care allowance to married women. It would be unreasonable to ask the Minister to provide a comprehensive disability income now, but he should start planning it now, because this is a major project and unless he starts planning now there will be delay after delay.

Mr. Rossi: We have started planning already. Such a system remains our long-term commitment and pledge, as was stated in our manifesto. The problem is that since Amelia Harris first sought to define and identify the number of disabled people in our community, no work has been done on this. I have set in hand preparations for a project to ascertain the degree of disability and the number of disabled people in our community.

Mr. Ashley: I am delighted to hear that a start has been made and that the pledge will be kept. In referring to the Amelia Harris survey, the Minister should bear in mind the need for identification immediately at local level so that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, especially sections 1 and 2, can be fully implemented. Nevertheless, I welcome the Minister's assurance. I shall question him on another occasion, when there is more time, about exactly what steps are being taken.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has made a great—and persistent but unpublicised—contribution to improving the lives of disabled people. With him, I have discussed with local authorities the need for specific grants. I am convinced that local authorities do not want to provide specific grants for disabled people, but I hope that the Minister will urge them to do so, because unless and until that is done we shall get nowhere with comprehensive provision.
I hope that the Government will also enforce the 3 per cent. quota scheme and impose a levy on all employers who evade it.
Finally, on disabled people's rights, I hope that the Government will legislate to outlaw discrimination. That was the main recommendation of the splendid report of the Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People, with its distinguished chairman, Mr. Peter Large. I have drafted a Bill based on the recommendations of that committee.


That is no credit to me. All the credit goes to the committee. One day, those proposals will be enacted. That will be a memorable day for disabled people and I hope that they will not have to wait too long for it.
These are reasonable and reasoned proposals and I hope that the Government will take them on board. I hope that the Government will change their attitude, change course and give the necessary help to disabled people.

Mr. Tom Benyon: In this important debate we are dealing with people who find it difficult to communicate, to lobby or to make a fuss about their position. Often they are silent and often they feel very oppressed. A major proportion of their time and energy must be devoted to coping with the acute problems of just living—living difficult lives and living with disability, which in the main they bear with the utmost fortitude.
As we all know, the work of the House depends upon pressure and lobbying. I am sure that all hon. Members present today recognise that we have an important role to play in bringing the plight of the disabled to the forefront of our deliberations and of our economic considerations when we discuss public expenditure priorities.
I should like to outline the advantages that the disabled have achieved in addition to those eloquently described by the Minister. First, like all those on low incomes, the disabled are the major beneficiaries of the present falling rate of inflation. Secondly, I know of various charities dealing with housing associations to provide accommodation, for example, for people discharged from psychiatric hospitals. In the recent past—I hope that this will continue throughout the life of this Administration—the housing associations have been full of cash for their building projects. The Government should be congratulated on that achievement.
However, the Government's action on the derating of invalidity benefit in 1980–81 was an error. I hope that the Government will take it upon themselves at the earliest possible opportunity to put right that derating. If one believes in the law of diminishing returns for those on high incomes, as I do, one should reverse that law for those who are on minimum incomes. The sum of £2 a week for a person on £35 a week or less is a great deal of money.
I hope that the Chancellor will feel able, at the earliest possible moment, to put right his promise, which was unequivocal. He promised that the 5 per cent. derating in invalidity benefit was in lieu of taxation. It appeared from his Budget speech not to be brought into taxation because of the shortfall in civil servants. If, in the new Budget, he raises the threshold and takes most of those on invalidity benefit out of tax, it would he too much for him to say now that in that case he would call it a day and not put the derating right. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House, and on this side of the House, will take that conclusion ill.
We have inveighed for some time against the invalidity trap, which penalises those on invalidity benefit who receive income slightly higher than the lower rate of supplementary benefit. That means that they never qualify for the higher rate of supplementary benefit. That may sound to the uninitiated, as it does to me, gobbledegook. It is another enormously complex pitfall with which those who are worse off and at the bottom of the pit have to contend.
As supplementary benefit is a passport benefit it includes many other benefits such as concessionary transport, to name but one. It means that those who are unemployed and disabled are worse off than those who are simply unemployed. This is a bitter irony that our Government should not tolerate for one moment longer. It is intolerable.
I can give an example of how this works adversely for people with whom I am connected. I am sure that many other hon. Members have seen it operate. In Aylesbury, pshychiatric patients are often brought out of hospital to make lives in the community again. One of the ways in which this is done is to ask a housing association or a charity to act as landlord for the local authority. The rent is collected from all the inmates in the house. If there are five inmates and one leaves, there is clearly a shortfall in rent. Therefore, a notional additional rent is attached which the charity collects against the possibility of someone leaving. It means that if nobody leaves, all the inmates have been paying more than they needed to pay to live in the house. Also, the charity does not know what to do with the money if nobody leaves.
If the people in the house are on supplementary benefit, the social services tell me that in that case they are happy to pay the shortfall. However, if the inmates are on invalidity benefit, the social security services cannot pay. This is one of the anomalies that I hope we should busy ourselves to put right.
I hope that at the earliest possible opportunity the Government will introduce partial invalidity benefit. I can give an example to show the House what happens when such a benefit is not available. A friend of mine, who I shall call Charlie Dunbar, was discharged from a psychiatric hospital in Aylesbury about six months ago. He was convinced that he could find work. He wanted to start a new life and hoped that he could earn an income and his living. However, I regret to inform the House that this has not been possible, and he has had a breakdown. I believe that our social security system was one of the factors contributing to the breakdown.
My friend faced a daunting task. To start with, he was the tail end of 3·3 unemployed. It was difficult for Charlie, with psychiatric problems, in any event to find work and convince an employer that he was better, or at least as good as those without his special problems. However, he found a part-time painting job for four days a week. He told the benefits people about the job and they said that he could earn only £4 a week or he would lose his invalidity benefit.
Charlie knew that he was not up to full-time work because he suffered from physical fatigue, caused by his having been institutionalised for many years, and mental stress. He had a difficult choice of either telling the authorities about his job or not telling them and going on the fiddle. He did not do the latter—he acted honestly, told the authorities about the job, lost his benefit and tried to make a go of it.
Charlie worked well, although he had to work very hard to make up for the benefit that he had lost. Because of the stress and fatigue, he had a mental breakdown and had to return to hospital. While in hospital, it took a further month for him to be put back on invalidity benefit again because of the problems of the system. He is now once again suffering from acute depression. The social security system makes it impossible for Charlie to work at his job


part-time as there is no flexibility in the system. He is regarded as either in work, in which case he has to rely on his wages, or unemployed and entitled to draw benefit.
The need to make provision for people such as Charlie has been well known to the House and to the Government since the early 1970s. A motion to implement this change was approved by the Lords in 1975 and the Snowdon working party report, published in 1976, recommended that provision for this should be made. An exhausitve survey was done in 1980, which was published by the Multiple Sclerosis Society, whom I should like to congratulate on its work. It has helped to bring the issue to the attention of the Government.
The case has received support from the Disablement Income Group, the all-party disablement group, my colleagues who work so hard on this, voluntary organisations, and so on. By the end of the year, Ministers had recognised the strong case for it. That the seriousness of the matter was recognised by the Government was evident in the Budget of 1982, when a therapeutic earnings limit was raised by 20 per cent. This alteration was announced at the same time as other changes in the social security system.
In 1982 the Economist intelligence unit report on structure and cost was published. The study recommended that changes within the law of invalidity benefit would be the easiest and cheapest method of achieving this provision. It showed that at the most conservative estimate, savings to the national economy would be about £5 million, the departure point being that all those involved would already be in receipt of benefit of one kind or another.
The Government welcomed the report, with certain reservations. While accepting the fact that some savings might accrue from those in receipt of benefit, the Government believe that further groups might qualify for part-time benefit who were now in full-time employment. Provision might have to be made for about 100,000 people in part-time employment at the enormous cost of £100 million.
This point has apparently delayed this vital reform. However, there is no sign that the Government's fears are founded on fact. The 100,000 people estimated as being in part-time employment are mostly women, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are working part-time for health reasons. They are merely reflecting a national pattern.
It is possible that some disabled people in full-time employment will filter through to a system of part-time work and part-time benefit. Therefore, preventive measures will have to be devised to ensure that this does not happen. Isolation of certain illnesses that are known to have fatigue as a characteristic would be one of them.
Another problem that has been identified is that GPs might be reluctant to carry out the assessment for the DHSS of who should qualify for the benefit. The British Medical Association has no objection to GPs carrying out assessment of partially incapacitated people, provided that the doctors are authorised on a fee basis by the DHSS. It further states that these doctors' examinations for sickness incapacity already include category C—those incapable of previous employment, but capable of alternative work.
I hope that the DHSS takes this on board and introduces as quickly as possible this important course of action. The

report had been prepared by the Open University for the European Commission. A draft has been submitted, and comments on it are expected soon. It is likely that the European Commission will make the provision of partial incapacity benefit mandatory on our Government, as disabled people are currently penalised because of their disability. They are trapped by their handicap, locked into a system of benefit which does not allow part-time work, and enjoy a type of benefit which is less than they would receive if they were not disabled.
It would be right for this Government, with the excellent record which they traditionally have for innovative social services and welfare work, to promise to act now before the European Commission does the job for them. My constituent, Charlie Dunbar, has enough problems in competing with the 3·3 million unemployed people who are not disabled, without finding that he is trapped in an unyielding system, seemingly designed to thwart his brave attempts to make a new life.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I shall be brief, because I know that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.
I thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for introducing this debate, which in my opinion is useful and timely. I listened with interest to the Minister's speech, and I hope that he will be more forthcoming before too long. However, he said one thing that worried me. In contrasting the demand for funds for public activities with the funds used for voluntary activities, he spoke of pouring money down the drain. I hope that that is not a reflection on the need for full-time professional services for disabled people.

Mr. Rossi: I am sure that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) does not want to misquote me. I never said that money for that purpose was pouring money down the drain. I said that when the Opposition party of which he is not a member was in Government it had the habit of pouring money down the drain. We are much more concerned to see that the money is well and properly spent.

Mr. Wigley: I note what the Minister says. None the less, I stress that without fully professional social services and health services for disabled people we shall never achieve the necessary standards. No doubt there is room for the voluntary sector, but it can be only a support on the fringes. It cannot be the basis of the system, if we are to ensure that all the people in need receive the services that they require. That should be our guiding principle.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the ideal situation is for the professional social workers to have the opportunity of organising the voluntary workers, as happened in the London county council care committees and is already being done in many councils and voluntary organisations throughout the country?

Mr. Wigley: There is nothing wrong in social workers helping the voluntary people, but the system should not depend on voluntary workers. The framework of the system has to be the professional full-time workers, otherwise the system will break. In my opinion, that is fundamental.
The main argument of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe concerned the right increase that is needed to meet the effects of inflation, and so on, on the benefits for disabled people. The argument can be a little spurious, because it depends on what basis one considers the percentage increases. One can argue that the present Government are keeping up the 1979 level of certain benefits. That may or may not be true. The question is whether the 1979 rate was the right rate. I argue that it was inadequate for many disabled people. In any case, since 1979 many of the cost elements—transport, petrol, and heating—have increased disproportionately for disabled people, compared with the inflation rate across the board. It is unfortunate if now, when people can benefit from the reduction in mortgage rates arising from decreasing interest rates, another group in society, the disabled—the people who are most in need—cannot benefit from similar reduction in inflation.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe spoke about section 6, relating to access. The Disabled Persons Act 1981 provided for the Government to introduce orders to implement section 6. It involves the method by which we can ensure that disabled people have access to new buildings which come under sections 4 to 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and ensure that they have mobility in the buildings. The Government have provided for appeals from those who want to avoid such requirements to go to a centralised body. The overwhelming evidence that has come to me and to those who are involved in this matter shows that there should be local scrutiny. The best way to do that is for British Standard 5810 to be built into the building regulations.
I know from what the Minister for Housing and Construction said to the all-party disablement group last week that the Government are looking at the matter again, in the context of their review of the building regulations. I am aware that it may cost £4 million or £5 million to do that, although I find it hard to believe that it would add so much to the cost. However, I accept that. If the Minister wants to put the issue of access properly to rest in a way that would be satisfactory to everyone, it should be done by using the building regulations. If that happened, there would automatically be local reviews by building inspectors, as for any other requirements of the building regulations. If the Minister wants the centralised body to be an appeals court, I am sure that that would be a good way to ensure standardisation. That is the way out of the difficulty.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I draw his attention to the fact that the parallel legislation in Scotland—the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act—dealing with access for disabled people to public buildings gave rise to a consultation document from the Scottish Office, which was issued in May this year, suggesting precisely what he has just described? It said that the adjudicating body should be the local building control authoritiy. That was seven months ago. As far as we know, the representations that have been received from interested bodies in Scotland support it, but as yet there has been no final reaction from the Government. Many of us fear that the Department of

the Environment in England and Wales has caused the delay. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to comment on that.

Mr. Wigley: I very much hope that Scotland is not being held back by the Department of the Environment in England. I hope that the Department of the Environment will look again at the matter and the the Minister will put pressure on the Department of the Environment to follow the Scottish lead in this respect.
If we turn BS 5810 into building regulations, we could have a formalised structure with little additional bureaucracy, because it is already an existing system. I appeal to the Minister to consider my suggestion.
I want to say a brief word on Tadworth. I suppose I am one of the few hon. Members whose children have stayed there. We needed to use it for a short stay during the summer holidays when we were going abroad. Tadworth had the great advantage of being combined with Great Ormond Street. The Great Ormond Street specialists could assess the children while they were there. We used it once, but I know that there are many families, particularly in South-East England, who have greatly benefited from the facility. If, as I understand it, the Government are considering the future of Tadworth, I hope that they will ask the questions "For what reasons is the possible closure of Tadworth being put forward?" and "Are they the right reasons, and are they in the interests of the consumers?" I have been a consumer, and I feel that it is possible that the advice that the Government have received may not be the best. Perhaps it is possible for the Minister to set up an informal independent review which could take effect as quickly as possible to settle the future of Tadworth.
Perhaps I can consider this debate in the international arena. I spent last week in Sweden, studying the provisions for disabled people there. I make no apology for examining Sweden. I have been accused of looking to where the grass is greener but having recently returned from Sweden I can say that the grass there is greener. From what I saw last week, there is much that must be done in Britain.
The integration of the mentally handicapped into the community in Sweden is far ahead of what we are doing. We have seen so many films on television of the terrible. circumstances of adult mentally handicapped in long-stay hospitals in Britain. Housing schemes in Sweden are designed to remove such adults from long-stay hospitals. In Stockholm, more than 600 people have been brought out of institutions to live in group houses or flats. I saw one of the flats in which the four occupants were cared for by six full-time workers. Sweden was willing to commit the resources necessary to ensure that integration in the community was a success. The flat was part of a normal housing development, so that the handicapped could lead a full life in the community.
One of the disabled girls spoke a little English. When I asked her whether she preferred her new home or where she was before, the way that her face lit up told me the whole story. The message is truly brought home when one contrasts the success of the Swedish integration scheme with the film "Walter" on Channel 4 a few weeks ago.

Mr. Tom Benyon: I, too, have been to Sweden and have seen what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) described. One reason why the Swedish can spend


more on integration facilities and other services is that their health service has saved enormous sums by the privatisation of catering and laundry services.

Mr. Wigley: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon), but I did not enjoy his intervention so much. Any such saving would be trivial in relation to the commitment of resources by the Swedish health service to the integration of the mentally handicapped into the community. They have an overwhelming commitment to provide social services for the disabled.
As to handicapped children, the Swedes now have no blind, deaf or mobility-handicapped children in institutions, and in the whole of Sweden there are only 57 children with mental difficulties in institutions. Soon those children will also be taken out of institutions.
I make no apology for examining Sweden. If that country can achieve such success, so should Britain. We should give priority to such matters as integration of the handicapped into the community. In Sweden, disabled children are being integrated into the school community and new schools are being built of a design to allow children—even those aged between 16 and 21—to work in adjoining classrooms with those without handicaps.
There are 95 job assessment centres in Sweden that have a ratio of one member of staff to every two handicapped people to assess. One assessment centre that I visited had 60 staff to assess 130 people. The Swedes have the people, the commitment and the resources necessary to achieve such a staff ratio.
I saw the operation of a flexible door-to-door transport system whereby a car can take a handicapped person to any part of the county on demand. For the price of a second-class railway ticket, a person can be taken to any part of the country. There are no age limitations on transport schemes. When I described the British mobility allowance system and said that it ended at the age of 65, the Swedes asked why. They said that 65 and above was the time when the need was greatest. They asked whether our scheme was not in response to need, and I found that a difficult question to answer because the need is greater after 65.
In Sweden, home helps are available to the handicapped for up to eight hours a day to ensure that the handicapped can live at home instead of in long-term hospitals.
The support that must be given to parents, as outlined by the Warnock report, is provided in Sweden. Some counties have as many as 16 teams for parents of handicapped children. Such teams comprise psychologists, rehabilitation paediatricians, speech therapists, nurses and special teachers. Such active teams support parents locally. Sweden provides all those services because it has civilised priorities. Everything hinges on priorities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said that he fully endorses the special initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on the mentally handicapped. In 10 years, the scheme will devote about £23 million on a recurrent basis to the initiative in Wales.

Mr. Wigley: Although I am critical of the Government in many areas, the Welsh Office has shown a greater lead

on this matter than many other Departments. I have said that before and I am willing to acknowledge it now. However, we need even more funds than have been earmarked. I realise the difficulties, but the funds being used by the Welsh Office will, unfortunately, be chopped from other parts of the Health Service. Trade unions and many other bodies commented on that. It has caused an enormous reaction and may cause difficulties in the implementation of the scheme. I hope not. I wish only that we could have had more funds and thus avoided the difficulty.
This year the Swedish Government are giving 1 million honer to Disabled Peoples International in order to help work towards the internationalisation of disabled matters. In the context of "Charter for the 1980s" and the work done by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and others, might it not be appropriate for the British Government to support the international bodies involved in disability works?
In Sweden last week I saw the future and it works. However, the question that remains with me is, when will it be part of our future?

Mr. John Hannam: This is a truncated debate and many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief.
One would imagine from listening to the speeches of Opposition Members that there was a complete lack of activity and progress in schemes for the disabled. I rushed back to the House today from Devon, where I took part in a ceremony at Devon county council's county hall. It was a post-International Year of Disabled People event, at which Devon county council expressed its thanks to the voluntary organisations and statutory bodies that were involved in all the developments of that year. There are still developments on a day-to-day basis. At the meeting, the council launched a new transport guide for the disabled in Devon, which showed the facilities available at each bus station, railway station and hospital. There was a demonstration of adapted vehicles and buses. It was obvious from that one event that many developments are continuing to help the disabled.
A few weeks ago I attended a special needs housing meeting together with representatives from the local authorities, social services departments and special needs housing groups. They talked of the progress that has been made and the problems that they face. Additional resources have already been announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and more resources became available for that area, especially through the joint funding scheme.
Last week I went to a conference set up to discuss the Education Act 1981, to which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) referred. Representatives from the local education authorities confirmed that resources were now being diverted into special education because of falling rolls and the Government's commitment to maintain the education budget. At that conference it was announced that the Minister had decided to increase the money available for the education of teachers in special education, a matter that concerned us all in Committee.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend welcome the increased involvement of parents in the education of their handicapped children?

Mr. Hannam: That was the main thrust of the Bill and all hon. Members who were involved with it were relieved that they could incorporate many provisions in the Bill to bring in parents and medical authorities from birth onwards. That is an important development.
As someone who is deeply involved in the matter, I, like many hon. Members, wish to do more. We wish to achieve a greater diversion of resources and to see more improvement. However, the position has never changed. One need only go back to 1976–77, when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who was then Minister with responsibility for the disabled, was in deep anguish about the effects of the severe cuts applied following the International Monetary Fund financial crisis. However, I acknowledge that after a full period of Government, sustained progress was achieved under the right hon. Gentleman, as is also being achieved now under this Government. I reject the Opposition motion and have no hesitation in supporting my right hon. Friend's amendment.
The House may recall that a year ago I led a campaign, supported by 270 hon. Members, to try to persuade the Chancellor to remove the unfair VAT levy on charitable organisations. We are about to restart that campaign. Ministers and hon. Members will be invited to a meeting on 1 December to be attended by representatives from 100 charities which are now supporting the campaign to have this anomaly removed. It makes absolutely no sense to talk about encouraging the voluntary organisations—we Conservatives want to do that—and at the same time to claw back for the Treasury 15 per cent. of the revenue raised by their efforts.
I hope that this year the Government will recognise the need to relieve these worthy charities of that VAT burden. If we get the same support as last year, I am convinced that, despite the difficulties—one understands that there are complications in working out a method by which such relief can be given—a way out of the problem can be found.
In 1980, the disabled in receipt of invalidity pension lost about £2 a week because of the introduction of the 5 per cent. abatement. I and a number of my hon. Friends strongly protested that that should not continue in the ensuing years and that it should be restored as soon as possible. The Government agreed not to continue the abatement, as originally planned, during the ensuing two years. We were assured that as soon as that pension was brought into taxation the abatement would be restored.
However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that, because of all sorts of complications, the inclusion of the invalidity pension in taxation is a long way off. In fact, it seems to be going further into the distance. The Government should make this a number one priority—even higher than the restoration of the 5 per cent. unemployment abatement.
We all know that invalidity pensioners must face extra costs because of their disability and special needs. Those not on supplementary benefits face high fuel bills in the winter, but no extra help is forthcoming from the extensive measures provided by the Government. I therefore press my right hon. Friend to restore that abatement as quickly as possible.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe painted a totally dismal picture of the disablement scene. He is fundamentally wrong in thinking that everything is gloom and disaster. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, overall

spending on social security for the disabled has risen in real terms by 5 per cent.—from £2,050 million in 1978–79 to £2,770 million last year. I particularly welcome the increase in both mobility and attendance allowance and also the extension of the invalid care allowance to non-relatives. I hope that married women will soon become eligible for that allowance, because they often give up their jobs and outside activities to look after their sick husbands.
I again refute the Opposition's attempt to imply that in some way under this Government the disabled are slipping backwards. More home helps and meals on wheels are now being provided—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] They certainly are. The last count in the Devon county council area showed a substantial increase in the number of home helps and meals on wheels.
Great progress has been made on preventive care, and progress has also been achieved in community care for the mentally handicapped. That progress is not as fast as we would like, but it is difficult to achieve these results during the present economic situation. Much more can be done, and I and other hon. Members will continue to press for more resources. I believe that the IYDP was a great success, and the support given to the aims set out in the United Nations charter can give the disabled great hope for the future. The examples that I see on my visits around the country convince me that, despite the recession, care for the disabled and the handicapped is improving arid increasing constantly. I therefore support my right hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. David Ennals: For the sake of brevity, I shall comment on three issues that have not yet been raised. I can sum up my feelings on the first in about three sentences. It concerns the 770 people who were disabled in the Falkland Islands battle. Why have they not received benefit as a result of the money generously raised through the South Atlantic fund, and why are many of them on reduced pay facing real hardship? Those people should each be given a lump sum of between £2,000 and £3,000 before Christmas. They are now suffering, and we must ensure that they do not continue to suffer.
Secondly, one of the most fruitful initiatives that I took during my time as Secretary of State was to lay the foundations for Motability. That was based on the mobility allowance introduced by the Labour Government, which is now payed to 220,000 disabled people. Motability enables them to lease or hire purchase a vehicle which they would not otherwise have. Lord Goodman and Mr. Jeffrey Sterling have done a magnificent job, and I was proud to attend the annual general meeting of Motability just a few days ago.
I am concerned about one effect of the mobility allowance on Motability. An increasing number of people are now awarded mobility allowance for a short time—for example, two years. However, no one who is granted mobility allowance for two or three years can enter into a contract for a vehicle which is dependent on payment of at least four years' mobility allowance. By the end of this year Motability will have provided 20,000 people, sometimes families, with vehicles. I am therefore concerned about this increase in the number of short-term awards. How many short-term mobility allowance awards have been made? For how long are they made? What proportion of the total secures extension? For reasons of


financial misery, I believe that we are now seeing a tightening up of the mobility allowance, which is essential if disabled people are to move about.
My third point relates to vaccine damage payments. Most of my points are contained in early-day motion No. 32, which has been signed by more than 100 hon. Members. When I introduced the Vaccine Damage Payments Bill in 1979, it was warmly welcomed by the Conservative Opposition, who made considerable mileage out of their support for the demand that there should be some compensation for this relatively small group. We all recognise that nothing should be done to harm the overall vaccination programme. In my view, there has been a cynical betrayal of a relatively small group of people for what can only be mean-minded motives.
I give three examples. First, we were told by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), before he became the Minister for Health, that there would be a proper compensation scheme. That was stated in a letter to Mrs. Rosemary Fox of the Association of Vaccine Damaged Children. The Conservatives were in favour of proper compensation when in opposition, but nothing has happened since they have been in government.
In 1978 £10,000 was awarded to the vaccine damaged children. My right hon. Friends the Members for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I called upon the Secretary of State to increase that figure on the grounds that £10,000 in 1978 was only about £6,000 today and was grossly unfair to the individuals and their families.

Mrs. Jill Knight: rose—

Mr. Ennals: I regret that time is short and I cannot give way.
The Government have insisted on taking the £10,000 capital sum into consideration in assessing entitlement to supplementary benefit. That means that if a claimant is over 16 he has either to spend the money all at once or it becomes an advance payment on his supplementary benefits. The Secretary of State at that time, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), gave an absolute written undertaking in a letter dated 24 July 1980. He said:
I am glad to say that the Regulations to be made under the Social Security Act will make it possible for such sums to be disregarded in assessing payments of supplementary benefit.
That was not carried out, either by the Secretary of State or by his Department. That is grossly unfair to that small minority who have suffered as a result of vaccination.
In conclusion, I wish to bring together those last two points. When I was Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe was Minister with responsibilities for the disabled, it was our policy to give the benefit of doubt to the claimant. I regret that I am convinced by much evidence that the opposite is now the case. The Government's mean-minded attitude now extends to disabled people, including children.
I can give many examples, but I shall give only one. Mark Gordon is a 7-year-old child from Norwich in my constituency. When he was born on 1 January 1975 he had all the signs of being fit and healthy until shortly after his vaccination. He is now severely brain damaged—one of that minute proportion who have suffered rather than gained from vaccination. A vaccine damage payment was

applied for but the application was rejected. I do not know why. I accompanied him to the tribunal to assist in putting his case. His appeal was rejected.
Let the Secretary of State take up the story. In a letter dated 16 November he said:
Mark's father first claimed mobility allowance on his behalf on 1 September 1980 but the claim was disallowed by the insurance officer on the grounds that Mark was not unable or virtually unable to walk. Mr. Gordon appealed against this decision to a medical board which subsequently awarded the allowance for two years from 1 September 1980 to 31 August 1982. Mr. Gordon made a renewal claim for Mark in May this year. A medical examination was carried out on 28 July, but the claim was again disallowed by the insurance officer on the grounds that Mark was not unable or virtually unable to walk. Mr. Gordon has appealed to a medical board against this decision and the relevant documents are being prepared.
There has been appeal after appeal for that small, 7-year-old boy whose physical and mental condition has not improved.
It is extraordinary and intolerable that parents have to deal with such bureaucracy and suffer such misery for small sums of money on matters of deep principle. As I said, the principle now seems to be when in doubt, refuse. Compassion has gone out of the window.
If the Minister says that I am being unfair, let me say that any Government who hit at the elderly, at invalids and at the unemployed are capable of anything.

Mr. Rossi: I shall say that the right hon. Gentleman is being unfair. He should know better. He has been Secretary of State for Social Services and he knows very well that all the matters to which he has referred are for the independent adjudicating authorities. They are medical judgments with which neither I nor any other Minister can interfere.

Mr. Alfred Morris: rose—

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All hon. Members acknowledge the difficulty in which the Chair finds itself when there are two debates rather than one, particularly with the present make-up of the House. However, I must put to you that it cannot be right that a debate of this kind takes place when no representative of the Liberal or Social Democratic parties is called to participate. It cannot be right that that should occur in view of the number of contributions from the Labour Party.
Every speech has been of enormous value. However, on Supply Days the Labour Party is accorded a privilege by the House.

Mr. Dobson: Labour Members were elected.

Mr. Cunningham: If I wished, I could discuss the changes of party, but that is not the issue before us at the moment.
Labour Members must bear in mind that Supply Days are not infrequent and there is nothing automatic about the vote at 7 o'clock. Therefore, if hon. Members wished—speaking for myself I do not—the matter could be pressed after 7 o'clock. In the light of that, I hope that the Chairman will endeavour to avoid such a position arising again.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I also ask you to bear in mind that the elected representatives of the Scottish Nationalist Party and of the several Northern Ireland parties also have such a claim? Therefore, Mr.


Deputy Speaker, if you are to give consideration to the small group which was not elected, you should give consideration to those groups which were,.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I understand the point that was made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) for explaining the difficult choice that the Chair must make on such occasions. This is a short debate. The Chair will always do its best to hold the balance. I should point out that a representative of one of the minority parties in the House was called to speak in the debate.

Mr. Alfred Morris: We are in very considerable difficulty as a result of the shortening of a debate that many right hon. and hon. Members expected to last for three and a half hours. They were unable to speak and yet they are people whose voices are entitled to be heard on what is an extremely important subject for 5½ million of the most needy of our fellow citizens. I must, however, again emphasise that there would have been no debate at all had it not been for my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) giving priority to the claims of disabled people over those of many other groups of people for the very limited parliamentary time available to him.
In the time available to me now, I cannot possibly reply to the debate on behalf of Labour Members, but there are a few points that I must make quickly. The Minister talked about personal social services and gave the impression that there had been no reduction in services for disabled people. If he looks at the report of the Select Committee on Social Services, he will find that, between 1979–80 and 1980–81, there was a cut in expenditure from £196·6 million to £194·6 million. Again, if he looks at expenditure on aids for the disabled, he will find that there is a cut from £20·9 million to £19·7 million.
The Minister makes a great issue of statistics and has often said that mobility allowance had increased by 83 per cent. under this Government. The reply is that, during Labour's period of office, the allowance increased by 150 per cent. from the £4 per week figure we announced when it was first proposed. Reference was made to the Education Act 1981. As the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said in an intervention, however, no resources are available for implementing that important legislation. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to say, since he was not called to speak, that he believes that the Government are doing a disservice to disabled people by trying to give the impression that things are much better than they really are for disabled people and their families.
No hon. Member who has spoken has been uncritical of the Government, except the Minister for Social Security. That is the distinction that he has among those of us who have taken part in the debate. The Minister for Health may want to share that distinction with him. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will note the comments made by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon). He said that it was a major error to cut invalidity pensions. When that measure was debated in Committee, the hon. Member for Abingdon said:
it appears that we are doing precisely the reverse of what we said in respect of the disabled."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 March 1981; c. 232.]
He is entitled to great respect from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I urge the Minister to take seriously the points made on both sides of the House in criticism of the Government's performance. I know that he will find it difficult to reply, because of the time limit, but I hope that he will accept that there is cause for major concern in the speeches he has heard in this debate.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for acknowledging the limit on time. I hope that the House will appreciate that I shall probably find it difficult—contrary to my usual practice—to give way to interventions. I shall attempt to deal with all the points raised, but some may have to be left to correspondence. However, we are all in difficulty, because many hon. Members would have liked to speak on the disabled. But the House has another important subject to debate and I understand that it is the wish of all Opposition parties as well as of the Government that debates should not be intruded on.
I have not taken part in debates on the disabled for some years, because I have been speaking on other subjects. Therefore, I am glad to be back discussing this subject. Although I have been speaking on other subjects and although until recently I was in another Department, it has not stopped me understanding the concern that many feel about the disabled. Before I became a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, I had experience of the way in which the Government threw themselves into the IYDP. Under the leadership of the Minister for Social Security, Ministers in every Department involved themselves deeply in the problems of the disabled and gave them a fresh priority in many aspects of the Government's work.
The Secretary of State for Social Services was then Secretary of State for Transport and I worked with him as his Parliamentary Secretary. During the IYDP, we produced a guide to transport for the disabled. I launched the new guidance on the design of taxis for the disabled, which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) referred to. The Minister for Housing and Construction has been referred to and I hope that he will deal by correspondence with some of the requests for figures and so on. He is holding meetings now about the possibility of building regulations being adapted to incorporate access for the disabled. Indeed, the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) raised that point. My hon. Friend the Minister has announced improvement grants which assist disabled people. I shall ensure that he replies to the points made by the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) and that he gives him the figures that he wants.
Reference has been made to the Education Act 1981, following the Warnock report, which the Government introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has only today returned from activities in Devon that flow directly from the IYDP and that reflect the fact that the Government have, throughout their period of office, paid considerable attention in every sphere of their activities to the problems of disabled people.

Mr. Freeson: rose—

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is one of several hon. Members to be disappointed by the lack of opportunity to speak. However, if I give way time will be lost from the next debate.
Although we have been giving priority to the disabled we must face up to the criticisms that have been made. However, this is not a wholly appropriate subject for an extremely partisan motion or for the absurdly partisan speeches that have been made by several hon. Members, whose concern for the disabled I do not doubt. I am not sure why the right hon. Members for Wythenshawe, for Norwich, North Mr. Enna1s) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) thought it necessary to indulge in party political knockabout on this subject. They do not need to do that.
We can all find ways in which to improve our performance, but the Government's record does not justify the censure contained in the motion. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security dealt in detail with many of the issues raised about cash provision and I have not left myself enough time to do so. However, the background to the criticisms of the various types of cash provision is—as my hon. Friend the Minister made clear—that the Government's budget for cash provision and income for the disabled is 5 per cent. higher in real terms in 1981–82 than it was in 1978–79. Detailed criticisms can be made but, during the recession, income support for the disabled has risen under the Government over and above the increase in prices.
Today, the uprating of benefits for this year has come into effect and benefits for all the disabled, as well as for other beneficiaries, have been raised by 11 per cent. That is well ahead of the current rate of inflation and of the forecast of inflation on which the uprating was based. All the disabled who are in receipt of any benefit are amongst those benefiting today from the Government's success in reducing inflation below the forecasts upon which their benefit increases were based.
My hon. Friends the Members for Abingdon and for Exeter referred to the abatement of invalidity pension. My hon. Friend the Minister repeated the Government's undertaking that, when that benefit is brought into tax, the abatement will be made good. I shall consider the points raised. However, as my two hon. Friends who are particularly concerned for the disabled press the case for a restoration of the abatement for invalidity pension as the Government's highest priority when Budget decisions are taken, I should point out to them that their words may echo in the next debate, when hon. Members will urge a different priority in those Budget judgments for a completely different group of people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon raised the subject of partial incapacity benefit. I am sorry that there is a difference between us about the cost of such a change to public funds, but as there is a difficulty and disagreement about costs a joint study has been set up between the Government and a group called the economist intelligence unit, which has been pressing that idea, to see whether agreement on the cost of the proposals can be reached.
I shall give some illustrations of the provision that we are making for the disabled out of the increased provision to Health Service funds. There may be censure in some areas, but it must be recalled that since coming to power we have increased spending on the hospital services by 16 per cent. above the movement of the retail price index.

The disabled have benefited from that. The hon. Member for Caernarvon, who has taken a close interest in such subjects, drew heavily on his experience in Sweden. I was interested in what he said about the priority given in Sweden to moving long-stay patients such as the elderly and the disabled out of hospital care and into residential and day care in the community. The Government recognise that that is a high priority. Indeed, that priority has been acknowledged in policy statements for some years and we are determined to do something about it. One of the problems of the hospital service is that long-stay residence is sometimes undertaken by the elderly or mentally handicapped not because they need to receive hospital treatment, but because there is no proper means of caring for them in the community.
We published a consulttive document called "Care in the Community" in July 1981. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced our reactions and decisions on it to the House on 28 July this year.
As a result of our decisions, district health authorities will in future be able to guarantee continuing annual payments to local authorities and voluntary organisations for people moving out of hospital into community care. We have also eased the rules which in the past were getting in the way of the so-called joint finance arrangements and making them unattractive to local authorities. In future, joint finance from the National Health Service will be available for extended periods for projects for moving people out of hospital. A maximum period for joint financing will be increased from seven to 13 years with 100 per cent. joint financing for up to 10 years.
In addition, we have a programme of pilot projects to promote new ideas for removing people from hospitals into community care. We have reserved up to £15 million for those pilot projects. We are legislating—indeed, the Second Reading of the Bill is today in another place—to make improvements to rules on joint finance which will help the disabled. We are ensuring that it will be possible to enable payments made under joint finance arrangements to be made by district health authorities in relation to education facilities and housing facilities for handicapped people.
At the moment, as the law stands, one is somewhat inhibitied in using Health Service funds because it is not legally possible to use them in anything that has a housing or education element. Often, with mentally handicapped children, it is the educational element that needs some support if children are to be moved.
We are still consulting local government and one of the first reactions from local government was that there was no additional money going into the joint finance arrangements. That point was answered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in the statement last week. As part of our new central policy initiatives, £6 million out of £22 million will be going to our new joint finance initiative. That must be examined against a background whereby joint finance provision is now £85 million, which is a £35 million increase since we came to office.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon also mentioned removing mentally handicapped children in particular from hospital. That is a particular concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself. The hon. Gentleman said that Sweden had removed the last of its mentally handicapped children from hospital. We hope to be able to say the same. We realise that some health


authorities have special problems in making suitable provision for children in their care. I am glad to say that £3 million has been allocated for this purpose in 1983–84 and we expect to make a similar sum available in each of the following two years, in the hope that after that we shall be able to make the same claim as the Swedes were able to make to the hon. Gentleman when he went there.
Tadworth Court hospital was referred to several times. I am sure that someone will have an Adjournment debate on the issue soon and that we shall have a full debate. A large number of Members are coming to see me in a deputation.
The problem came to a head and came to Ministers only last week when the governors decided to recommend the closure of Tadworth Court and the transfer of the children to Queen Mary's hospital, Carshalton. It is not true to say that the problem arises from a lack of money. Hon. Members have spoken about the wards at Great Ormond Street. We are, in fact, putting more money into the Great Ormond Street group of hospitals but the fact is—it is a good fact—that Great Ormond Street—

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I cannot give way. I have explained why—

Mr. Dobson: Windy again.

Mr. Clarke: Some things do not conjure up much fear—only lack of time prevents me from taking on the hon. Gentleman.
We have given more money to the Great Ormond Street group of hospitals but it is taking on more and more difficult cases from all over the country, and greatly increasing its intensive care activity. We are having difficulty in expanding its budget fast enough to keep up with the provision. It is against that background that we stepped in to stop the recent threatened closure of intensive care units at Great Ormond Street and gave it the extra money to stop that closure. Great Ormond Street has had to examine its provision for Tadworth Court out of its budget.
I wish to make it clear that there is no question of the children being turned out of that hospital in the immediate future. No one is suggesting that the service that the children and patients receive should be stopped. The problem that has come to Ministers to be resolved is where and how best to provide that service and, specifically, whether it should continue to be provided at Tadworth Court or whether it should be provided at St. Mary's hospital, Carshalton, which is about four miles away.
One hon. Member asked why I do not answer today and declare that we shall keep the hospital open. The Great Ormond Street governors are not heartless and insensitive people who came to the recommendation quickly, and it is not heartless and insensitive to say that one requires a month or two to meet those involved, to visit the hospitals and to examine the issues. The issues are not so straightforward.
One of the things that does not emerge from much of the discussion is the proposal that the children should be moved about four miles to another hospital. It is also not often appreciated that Tadworth Court is half empty and that a number of the beds are not in use. It is also not appreciated that the hospital stands in 60 acres of grounds

and that the high cost of provision is mainly for maintaining all the buildings in the grounds, and that a large part of the grounds is occupied by grazing horses.
There are difficult practical problems that must be examined. It is all very well for people to say, as they did say, that only £1·4 million is needed. That £1·4 million could be spent over and over again in children's hospitals in Britain. That sum cannot lightly be committed to a project. We shall be looking sensitively and with care at the problems of Tadworth Court.
I have no time to deal with the allegations about cuts in personal social services spending in local government. Again, random examples from random authorities were chosen by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. The background is that local authorities are spending 7 per cent. more in real terms on social services now than they were when we came to office. If they follow our guidelines, they should be able to make further real growth next year.
I was also asked about the prevention of disability, which is an equally important matter. I have no time to do that justice now but I shall deal with two of the more persistent points. First, the closure of the breast cancer diagnostic unit at the Royal Marsden hospital was raised by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. I intervened in his speech only because he took me by surprise by denouncing a Government decision to close that unit. The only action that the Government have so far taken has been to step in to ensure that it was not closed when the governors of the Royal Marsden decided that they wanted to close it. Again, that matter has come to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself for consideration. One hon. Member asked why we did not say that we would keep it open. We will be able to come to a decision shortly.
Before making glib claims and before supporting each and every one of the lobbies which flow into the newspapers, week in, week out, for understandable and good reasons, one must realise that the issue is not straightforward. The governors of the Royal Marsden recommended closure not because they were heartless and insensitive to the problems of cancer. They have had no cuts in their budgeting. There is a serious controversy within the medical profession about the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of this method of screening for breast cancer. There is a genuine doubt about whether it is the right choice of priorities to spend money on this type of screening method. The real answer is to have some research and to evaluate the effectiveness of these breast screening methods compared with others.
I am glad to say that the Government are funding just such research at a cost of £600,000 each year into similar breast cancer screening units at Edinburgh and Guildford. We are examining the practicality of such screening methods. We are also seeing what more can be done—this is equally important—to teach women to do more self-examination, which is probably the most effective means of screening.
Although plenty of people in the medical world are prepared to say that the expenditure at the Royal Marsden is not justified and that £100,000 could be spent better elsewhere, my right hon. Friend and I have to decide whether we ought not to keep the unit going pending the outcome of the research. We shall examine that again sympathetically and sensitively; it is not true to say that we are ignoring the problems.
I have no time to go on to the other preventive measures which I intended to mention such as the important uptake in the vaccine programme which has been achieved. I hope that we shall have much-improved figures, in particular for whooping cough and measles, in order to catch up with the great achievements in the protecting of the population against diphtheria, polio and tetanus.
The vaccine damage payment scheme was inevitably raised. I hope that those who campaign for a compensation scheme realise that if they go over the top in campaigning they will risk seriously damaging the vaccine campaign itself. That risk has been taken in the past. People are entitled to say what they want about compensation, but we must bring home to the public the fact that the diseases are more dangerous than the vaccines. More lasting brain damage and more fatalities occur through catching whooping cough or measles than are risked by having the vaccine. No parent should be deterred by the political controversy surrounding the compensation scheme. They should go ahead and have their children vaccinated.
Hon. Members have mentioned what has and has not been said in the past. I suffered an absurd experience when appearing on "World in Action". I was asked about a letter that I was supposed to have written in 1975. I was not shown the letter then, but I have seen a photocopy since. Meanings were alleged that the letter did not have.
I listened to what the right hon. Member for Norwich, North said about what we did and did not say in opposition. In 1975 everybody said that there was a problem and in 1978 the right hon. Gentleman was privileged to introduce the scheme to provide £10,000 in payment. Today we have to consider how far it is justifiable to give further preferential treatment to vaccine-damaged children and how far the resources should be used to improve facilities for disabled people as a whole. The right hon. Member who introduced the compensation scheme fell below his normal standards when he suggested that the rules of eligibility had been changed. They have not.
I apologise for making such a short tour of the issues. The theme to which I have been able to refer throughout is that the Government have increased their spending on cash benefits for the disabled, have increased their spending on care for the disabled, have policy initiatives for the disabled and gave excellent leadership to IYDP. Against that background, it is absurd that the motion should be pressed to a vote. I commend the amendment to my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 295.

Division No. 12]
[7.11pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Allaun, Frank
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Alton, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Tom


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Buchan, Norman


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ian





Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Canavan, Dennis
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cartwright, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Kerr, Russell


Cohen, Stanley
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lambie, David


Cook, Robin F.
Lamond, James


Cowans, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Leighton, Ronald


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Lester, Miss Joan


Crawshaw, Richard
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McCartney, Hugh


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dewar, Donald
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dixon, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Dormand, Jack
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Douglas, Dick
Maclennan, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McTaggart, Robert


Dunnett, Jack
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marks, Kenneth


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maxton, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (Newton)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Field, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Fitch, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foulkes, George
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Newens, Stanley


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Freud, Clement
Ogden, Eric


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
O'Halloran, Michael


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Palmer, Arthur


Golding, John
Park, George


Gourlay, Harry
Parker, John


Graham, Ted
Pavitt, Laurie


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pendry, Tom


Grant, John (Islington C)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Prescott, John


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Race, Reg


Hardy, Peter
Radice, Giles


Harman, Harriet (Peckham)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Richardson, Jo


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Heffer, Eric S.
Robertson, George


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Home Robertson, John
Rooker, J. W.


Homewood, William
Roper, John


Hooley, Frank
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Howells, Geraint
Rowlands, Ted


Hoyle, Douglas
Ryman, John


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sever, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheerman, Barry


Janner, Hon Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.






Short, Mrs Renée
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Silverman, Julius
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Skinner, Dennis
Wardell, Gareth


Snape, Peter
Wellbeloved, James


Soley, Clive
Welsh, Michael


Spearing, Nigel
White, Frank R.


Speller, John Francis (B'ham)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Spriggs, Leslie
Whitehead, Phillip


Stallard, A. W.
Wigley, Dafydd


Steel, Rt Hon David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stoddart, David
Willey, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Straw, Jack
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Winnick, David


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woodall, Alec


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wright, Sheila


Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



Tilley, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tinn, James
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and


Torney, Tom
Mr. George Morton




NOES


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clegg, Sir Walter


Alexander, Richard
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cormack, Patrick


Ancram, Michael
Corrie, John


Arnold, Tom
Costain, Sir Albert


Aspinwall, Jack
Critchley, Julian


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Crouch, David


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dover, Denshore


Banks, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Best, Keith
Eggar, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Elliott, Sir William


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Eyre, Reginald


Blackburn, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Farr, John


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Fell, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bright, Graham
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Brinton, Tim
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brooke, Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Brotherton, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fox, Marcus


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buck, Antony
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Budgen, Nick
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bulmer, Esmond
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Burden, Sir Frederick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butcher, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butler, Hon Adam
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorst, John


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Gow, Ian


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gower, Sir Raymond


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Churchill, W. S.
Gray, Rt Hon Hamish


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Greenway, Harry


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Grieve, Percy





Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grist, Ian
Mudd, David


Grylls, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Gummer, John Selwyn
Myles, David


Hamilton, Hon A.
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Tony


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Normanton, Tom


Hawksley, Warren
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Heddle, John
Osborn, John


Henderson, Barry
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Parris, Matthew


Hooson, Tom
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hordern, Peter
Patten, John (Oxford)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Percival, Sir Ian


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pink, R. Bonner


Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman
Pollock, Alexander


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Porter, Barry


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Mrs Jill
Renton, Tim


Knox, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lang, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Latham, Michael
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rossi, Hugh


Lee, John
Rost, Peter


Le Marchant, Spencer
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Smith, Dudley


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Speller, Tony


McQuarrie, Albert
Spence, John


Madel, David
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Major, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Antony
Squire, Robin


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stainton, Keith


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mates, Michael
Stanley, John


Mawby, Ray
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Martin


Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stradling, Thomas, J.


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Tapsell, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, Donald


Moore, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thornton, Malcolm






Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, Bowen


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Trippier, David
Wheeler, John


Trotter, Neville
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Whitney, Raymond


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wickenden, Keith


Viggers, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Waddington, David
Wilkinson, John


Wakeham, John
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Waldegrave, Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas


Walker, B. (Perth)
Wolfson, Mark


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wall, Sir Patrick
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waller, Gary



Walters, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Ward, John
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Carol Mather.


Watson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the Main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the efforts made by Her Majesty's Government, despite prevailing economic difficulties, to protect and develop services and benefits available for disabled people and welcomes the United Kingdom's commitment to carrying forward the aims of the International Year of Disabled People.

Unemployment Benefit

Mr. Brynmor John: I beg to move,
That this House believes that, with the introduction of taxation of unemployment benefit last July, all justification for the five per cent. abatement has disappeared; that it now constitutes a surcharge upon the benefit; and demands that full unemployment benefit should be restored immediately.
This is the fourth time that this matter has been debated. There is no need to apologise for bringing it forward once again in an attempt to wring from the Government a concession on the mean surcharge on unemployment benefit.
I shall refresh the memory of the House of previous debates and the two main arguments that the Government have advanced for not conceding the 5 per cent. abatement. The House chose to interpret previous Government utterances as an assurance that when tax was imposed on unemployment benefit the abatement would cease. In spite of that and by a textual analysis that would have done credit or discredit to the Bacon-is-Shakespeare theorists, the Government proved that what we all understood to be the facts were not so.
When he wound up the debate on the needs of disabled people, the Minister for Health said with absolute assurance that when disablement benefit comes into tax the 5 per cent. charge will be abated on their incomes. Lucky them. That is not what has happened to the unemployed.
The Government relied upon the textual analysis time and again. That trawling through words did no credit to the Government. It did no service to the unemployed. It would be unworthy of us if we trawled through Ministers' statements once again. Whatever the Government said or meant since the entry of unemployment benefit into tax in July, there has been no moral or logical justification for continuing the 5 per cent. abatement. In continuing it, the Government have transferred an abatement into a surcharge on the unemployed. It is a type of forced loan by which the victims of the Government's industrial blitz loan 5 per cent. of their insurance back to those who have caused the damage.
The second reason was that which the Minister of State used. No one reads an unconvincing brief with the solemnity that he can muster. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He is keeping a low profile. That has been his task throughout previous debates. I shall summarise what he said. It was that a line must be drawn somewhere and someone has to fall outside it; we just do not have the money to concede the abatement restoration.
Whatever may have been the justification in March when he said that first, since July there has been none. It is now accepted that the cost of restoring the cut for 1982–83 is £20 million and that in a full year it would be £60 million. Since unemployment benefit has been brought into tax, it will yield £650 million in a full year. It has been taxable for four months. I do not know precisely how much has been collected. Perhaps the Secretary of State can enlighten us.
Nevertheless, I can say with confidence that the amount already collected in taxation of unemployment benefit must exceed by far the cost of a full year's abatement of the surcharge. Let us not have from the Secretary of State or any other Government spokesman the cant about not being able to afford to restore the £60 million. It can be paid for and still leave extra revenue for the Government.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have argued the same type of case as he has. Does he agree, however, that we are more likely to get Government sympathy if we recognise that from today many benefits have been increased by more than the rate of inflation? Does he agree that there would be more than eight hon. Members now present on the Labour Benches if that had not happened? Does he also agree that it is worth arguing with the Government that the savings to them of lowered inflation makes it possible to meet that sum just as easily as it would have been if the taxation argument had been met?

Mr. John: Although inflation rates will help the Government in their sums, the argument does not need to be based on that ground. The simple answer is that the 5 per cent. abatement was made in lieu of taxation. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may wish to do now as an excuse for wanting to fight the next time, I recall warning him on the last occasion that he was one of a brand of people who always intended to rebel the next time a debate took place.

Mr. Bottomley: rose—

Mr. John: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is limited time available for the debate.

Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not argued that I will do something the next time. Each time in the past, I have actually done it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman merely prolongs my contribution and reduces the time available for his. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) signed the amendment and then worked himself into a lather of abstention. Apart from his ever-open mouth, the hon. Gentleman has no qualification to talk about honesty in this House to anyone. I shall make my speech in my own way. I pray that whenever I need legal assistance I shall find someone other than the hon. Member for Grantham available in chambers.

Mr. John Prescott: Or for political advice.

Mr. John: My hon. Friend is right. No amount of effusion from the hon. Member for Grantham will hide the fact that his service to the debate is not very serious when one considers the plight of the unemployed. That standard of compassion is not typical of serious Conservative Members. It is, however, the sort of thing that gets Parliament a bad name. The unemployed do not understand how affluent young people can mock and make fun of a serious issue.
There is no reason why simple justice should not be effected. Why is the 5 per cent. abatement so unfair? There has been talk of the unprecedented level of unemployment in post-war Britain. Many people who never imagined themselves without a job have suffered that fate. With the abolition of the earnings-related supplement, the lowering of child dependency and the 5 per cent. cut, the unemployed have suffered grievously. If none of this had happened, one-third could be added to a single person's benefit and over one-half to a married couple's benefit.
The plunge for people no longer receiving a wage income is much steeper and more catastrophic than ever before. The hon. Member for Grantham should remember, when he is next tempted to giggle, that a million children depend on a parent now drawing unemployment benefit or short-term supplementary benefit. That is a tragedy and a scandal. The 5 per cent. abatement has added capriciously to the burden.
The abatement means that £1 a week, on the basis of last year's rates, was cut from the single person's unemployment benefit. With today's uprating, it has gone up to £1·10 a week for a single person. For a married man with a dependent wife, the figure of £1·60 a week, based on last year's rates, is now £1·75 a week. The very poorest and most unfortunate in our society are penalised. It is no wonder that one-third of all men who claim unemployment benefit have to top up the benefit by claiming supplementary benefit in addition. It is a sad fact that unemployment benefit is at its lowest as a proportion of average earnings for over 30 years. We are debating tonight the restoration of what is undeniably the meanest cut of all in unemployment benefit.
Everyone knows that the time has come for the House to take matters into its own hands. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn economic package and the Secretary of State for Social Services, during the Queen's Speech, debate revealed very little. They wriggled on this question and refused to commit themselves. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) said—I paraphrase his words—that if he was unable to get an assurance of more action from his Front Bench during the debate, it would be time for the House to take matters into its own hands.
In the absence of any reply—none was forthcoming from the Leader of the House at the end of the Queen's Speech debate—this is the time when the House should act unitedly to show that the Government are wrong.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that as nothing has been done so far, several Conservative Members having made their position clear, the time to act is the Budget next year? Does he not accept that the debate tonight is a political exercise?

Mr. John: I shall deal with that point during my speech. If the hon. Gentleman obtains as precise an answer as he seems to expect, he will be doing well. According to the great caution shown in the Financial Times today, when it refers to what the Secretary of State will be saying,. there appears to have been a retreat from the "coming shortly" trailers of last week.
I wish to deal with the unfairness of the 5 per cent. abatement. Because there is no threshold and no personal allowances, many hundreds of thousands of unemployed who would not otherwise fall into the tax net have to pay the 5 per cent. abatement of their unemployment benefit. The absence of any threshold also means that they suffer the abatement from the first £1 of their income. There is not even the marginal help of the national insurance fund minimum wage. In all ways, it is therefore a more regressive tax than even the national insurance contribution has proved under the Government.
With the 5 per cent. abatement added to the liability for tax it becomes double taxation. Those who fall into tax have their income abated by 5 per cent. for unemployment benefit and find that their effective rate of taxation is


higher than the standard rate when they come to pay because of the 5 per cent. abatement from the first £1 of their unemployment benefit.
Despite the evasions and the faltering uncertainties of contributions to the debate on the Queen's Speech, a great deal of information has appeared in the newspapers to suggest that the Government will concede rather than risk losing the Division tonight. There is some persuasive evidence for that belief if one pays careful attention to those on the Government Front Bench. The Chris Tavare of the ministerial team, the man who can occupy the Dispatch Box for 40 minutes without creating a single scoring fact, has been relegated from a speaking role. The Secretary of State, whom one imagines would be eager to make formidable and favourable announcements, is likely to speak instead. Is it therefore a good sign? I believe that it is not. I shall give my reasons in a moment.
According to the newspapers, the right hon. Gentleman will be saying nothing definite. The matter is to be handled on a "nudge, nudge" basis or by an approach in which it is hinted "You stick with us, boys, and it will be all right come the Budget, the next uprating, the revolution, or whatever you like." Nudge, nudge Norman will do his job on the Tory rebels tonight and all will go away happily convinced that the Government are firmer in their resolve than ever before.
However, if the Government give a commitment that they will uprate the benefit on an unspecified date, what will that mean? It will mean no more than what we were told in March and July by the Minister of State, Treasury, that when the time was right the cut would be restored. The time will never be right unless the Government face a revolt in the House that makes their defeat imminent.
I make this point in all seriousness to Conservative Members. A vote deferred tonight on restoring the benefit immediately is a vote won by the Government and a vote lost by the unemployed. All the problems and uncertainties about timing by the Chancellor will still remain if all that the Government say is "Yes, we are wholly committed, at a time of our choosing, to restoring that benefit."

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is not that a false use of the word "restore"? When the Government do that the money will go only to those who are drawing unemployment benefit. A large number of people who are unemployed now will not receive benefit in future. They will never get the money. A large number of people will also have exhausted their entitlement to benefit and will be on supplementary benefit. They, too, will not receive the money.

Mr. John: I agree with my hon. Friend. One talks about restoring benefit. One does not talk about restoring it to beneficiaries. Many of the people who suffered the 5 per cent. surcharge, as I call it, have now passed into the ranks of the long-term unemployed and are therefore on short-term supplementary benefit. They will never be compensated, but I hope that justice will be done to those who, one is assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if by no other authority, will be unemployed during the forthcoming year.
If a date is set tonight that will be a great victory for the House of Commons. It will not be a matter of self-congratulation for the Government. However, I do not believe that a date will be set. I say to Conservative

Members that to secure any date the House must vote for the motion for immediate restoration of the cut in unemployment benefit. We should mean that.
Already for more than four months the benefit has been abated and taxed at the same time. During that time the loss has been £20 to the single unemployed person and £32 to the married couple. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) said that the proper time may be the Budget. However, that is in another four months' time. The loss to single unemployed people and to married couples would be doubled. Therefore, we cannot view with such equanimity a deferral, which would double the period and the loss that is currently sustained by single and married unemployed people.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford should also remember that that is not the only date that is talked about. The other date is at the uprating next November. It is true that no one will suffer for 16 months because unemployment benefit is surcharged by 5 per cent. No one is on unemployment benefit for 16 months. People receive it for only a year. However, at the current rates, uprated today that will mean a loss over the year to the single unemployed person of £57·20, and to the unemployed man with a dependent wife a loss of £91. That is nothing to the hon. Member for Grantham, but it is a considerable sum for the unemployed who are struggling to make ends meet in the midst of what everyone agrees is an economic blizzard. If we say "It does not matter because they will receive the money next November or March", it will appear that we are fighting the slump to the last drop of the unemployed people's blood. That would give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is notably unenthusiastic about the restoration of the abatement, further room for manoeuvre, adjustment and the evasion of the will of the House.
The only way in which the House can proceed properly is to vote for the immediate restoration of the 5 per cent. The Government could have held out a sop to those on the Conservative Benches who were agnostic or hostile to what the Government are doing. They could have tabled an amendment to the motion. They have chosen not to do so. They are trying to commit all Conservative Members to a defence of the current unredeemed stance on this subject, which many Conservative Members found unconvincing last July and which they should find equally unconvincing now.
If we vote for immediate restoration we shall at least minimise the damage to the unemployed that has been done by four months of double taxation. Anything less will be an act of collective cruelty for which the House will be rightly blamed. Anything less will condemn many hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens to a needless cut in their standard of living, which has already been cut by the cardinal sin of their being unemployed.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said in his intervention, it is right to remember that the debate is taking place on the day when we are increasing the amount paid in social security benefits by about £3 billion a year. That means that the annual social security budget will have increased to £32½ billion, making up about 28 per cent. of public spending. That is the proper context of the debate. The


point that my hon. Friend sought to make probably explains why there are only six or seven Labour Members on the Back Benches.

Mr. David Alton: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall clear my throat and then I shall give way.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) almost failed to recognise that context. Yet the fact is that those increases have been achieved during a period of worldwide recession that has been unprecedented since the end of the Second World War and that has led to pressures on the social security budgets of every nation that I can think of in Western Europe.
For example, in France the Government are moving from an historic basis to a forecast basis of settling benefit increases. That will be familiar to the hon. Gentleman. In other words, they will forecast the rate of inflation. The purpose, as with the last Labour Government, is to save money. Nor have the French Government given any guarantee that they will make good any shortfall in their forecast. Other countries throughout Western Europe are facing similar problems.
Therefore, today's increases are the right starting point of the debate for two major reasons. First, almost all benefit rates are being increased today.

Mr. Alton: The Secretary of State has been trying to spell out that a great deal of money is being made available. How does he account for the report in The Guardian this morning, which said that a survey carried out by the Child Poverty Action Group revealed that about £2 billion of benefits have been eroded in the past three years?

Mr. Fowler: The article was by Mr. Hencke who asked the Child Poverty Action Group to put together some information. The claim made in the article was that
almost every group of claimants is worse off than three years ago.
That is not so. It is untrue. If the hon. Gentleman looks at retirement pensions, supplementary benefit, the prescribed level of family income supplement and mobility allowance he will see that those facts are untrue. He can come to that point if he wishes. The figures are available, and we can deal with that matter.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is the Minister disputing the figures in the table showing the losses for each individual benefit?

Mr. Fowler: I am disputing the claim in the article that almost every group is worse off than three years ago.

Mr. Thomas: Are these figures wrong?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should read the article. I have stated what is being claimed. Two or three groups have been chosen. The figures are not a fair representation of the position. We shall gladly debate the issue at length with the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.
Almost all benefit rates are being increased today by 11 per cent. That 11 per cent. is made up of a 9 per cent. forecast for the increase in inflation between November 1981 and November 1982 plus a further 2 per cent. to make good the underpayment that had taken place in the inflation forecast of the previous 12 months. In other words, the rise in the retail price index exceeded the forecast by 2 per cent. We are making good that underestimate in this year's uprating.
That means that from this week benefits such as pensions and unemployment benefit will be increased by 11 per cent. That rate will be paid for the next 12 months. In time for the next uprating in November 1983 the Government will have to decide the amount by which benefits will be further increased.
In making that decision the Government will have to have regard to the fact that the actual rate of inflation between November 1981 and November 1982 will turn out to have been less than the 9 per cent. forecast. This week we shall make good all the previous underestimate. For November 1983 the Government will have to decide by what amount to adjust to take account of the overestimate. It is a necessary consequence of the system that we now have based on the forecast method that was introduced by the Labour Government.
That brings me to the second major issue. The Opposition motion calls not only for the restoration of the 5 per cent. unemployment abatement but for its immediate restoration. In other words, the Opposition are not saying that that should be done at the next uprating; they are saying that it should be done now.
I do not believe that that proposition should be supported. The changes in benefits that are coming into operation this week were part of the examination that the Government carry out each year and that were announced in the annual uprating statement in March after the Budget. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) made. It represented not only the Government's judgment of the rates of benefit to be paid but their decisions on other changes in the system. For example, we decided to increase the limit on the amount of capital that a person can hold and still receive supplementary benefit from £2,000 to £2,500, which was a change that many of my hon. Friends pressed on me.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Not enough.

Mr. Fowler: But a start.

Mr. Cormack: A good start.

Mr. Fowler: We increased the earnings rules for retirement pensioners and doubled the earnings limit for those receiving invalid care allowance. Mobility allowance not only goes up from £16·50 to £18·30 a week, but the allowance is no longer liable to tax.
All those decisions will, I believe, be broadly welcomed by the House, but there were other changes that the Government were being pressed to make. We had to decide at one and the same time how much money could be devoted to changes and what those changes should be. We had to decide among strong claims and decide what our priorities were. I believe that to do it this way is the only rational way of making such decisions.
If we seek to make decisions piecemeal the only effect can be that resources are pre-empted. As a general proposition, it must be right for the Government to make all decisions affecting uprating at one and the same time. That is no different for the forthcoming uprating. Over the next few months many will urge different courses on the Government. For example, we shall be urged to keep the adjustment on pensions to a minimum and to make other changes affecting other groups.
The Government will want to take all such factors into account when they make their decisions and would not be


willing to agree to an immediate restoration of the abatement, because we have taken our decisions on the uprating of benefits to be paid this year. Those decisions represented our judgment of what the nation could afford. We would not be prepared to go back on them and particularly on a decision that has been debated and voted upon in three separate debates.
We would also not be willing to agree to immediate restoration on the ground that these decisions should not be taken piecemeal, which is not a sensible course for any Goverment. It makes financial planning impossible. But more than that, the Government are now considering all these issues. The House has only a few months to wait for all our decisions. They will all be subject to the scrutiny of the House. That is self-evident. It would be wrong to take the decision on this benefit as the result of an Opposition motion.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Winnick: From what the right hon. Gentleman said it appeared that he or the Government might give way if it was not for our motion. No one will believe that.
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that if the 5 per cent. is to be restored at all by the Government in no circumstances will it be restored before next November? He says that decisions should not be taken piecemeal. A reply that I received from the Minister of State shows not only that 5 per cent. has been deducted, but if the earnings-related supplement had continued the difference for a married man with a non-working wife would have been about 33 per cent. and for a single person 51 per cent.

Mr. Fowler: I saw the answer. The right time to take the decision is not in the manner suggested but in the normal way for the reasons that I have stated.

Mr. John: I asked the Secretary of State how much tax on unemployment benefit has been collected in the four months. Will he set that figure against the costs of a full year's 5 per cent. abatement?

Mr. Fowler: I do not have the figures for the amount collected in the four months. But the tax paid greatly exceeds the cost of restoring the abatement. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give the hon. Gentleman the exact total.

Mr. Cormack: We fully understand my right hon. Friend's resistance to the Opposition motion, but he would give his hon. Friends a great deal of pleasure if he made an announcement consistent with the undertaking given. Will he assure us that by April at the latest the matter will be put right?

Mr. Fowler: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall try to answer the point that he has made.
On the principle of the 5 per cent. abatement—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), who is apparently leading for the SDP, seems to regard this as a matter for great hilarity. He is the only representative of his party who has turned up for the debate, he was not present on the last occasion, and his general demeanour is a disgrace in a debate on such a serious subject.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Now answer the question.

Mr. Fowler: The abatement was made as part of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980. It was a cut in the social security budget. No one pretends otherwise, and no one claims that it was an easy decision. The hon. Member for Pontypridd made a number of comments about that policy.

Mr. David Ennals: Answer the question.

Mr. Fowler: I will come to that if right hon. and hon. Members will just be patient.
My basic criticism of the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypridd is that he talks as though no cuts were ever made in the social security budget by the Labour Government, then supported by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. The hon. Member for Pontypridd must know—if he does not, his right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) certainly does—that that is pure humbug. There was a series of cuts, ranging from the abolition of the Christmas bonus in 1975 and 1976 to the change in the whole basis of the uprating exercise. The uprating had hitherto been made on a historic basis, but the Labour Government changed it to a forecast basis, for one very good reason. As the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), revealed in his book, that change saved the Labour Government more than £500 million, which today would be worth £1 billion—and that, of course, affected unemployment benefit as well.

Mr. Ennals: Is the Minister saying that the system applied then by the Labour Government and now by himself is unfair or does he agree that it is fair? When he replies to that, will he also answer the question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), who is my pair and a good friend of mine?

Mr. Fowler: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's declaration of undying friendship for my hon. Friend. I shall answer both points.
On the first point, the former Chief Secretary says in his book:
I managed to obtain a change to fix the pension increase to be announced in the April, on the 'forecast' increase in earnings or prices to the following November. The reason was simple: with inflation forecast to show a substantial fall, if we had not made such a change, we would be increasing pensions and other benefits by nearly 30 per cent. when earnings and price increases were already falling.
Therefore, let us have no nonsense about that change being made for any other reason than to achieve a saving in the social security budget.
I do not hide from the fact that the Government made a cut in the social security budget as a contribution to reducing inflation. Those efforts have now resulted in inflation coming down to under 7 per cent., which is the lowest rate for 10 years. The reduction of inflation is also to the benefit of all those who depend on the social security budget—either directly, because pensioners find that their savings are not being eroded at the terrifying rate which had become the rule in this country, or indirectly, because only with low inflation is it possible to look forward to industrial recovery and the creation of the resources necessary to sustain the social security budget—and the creation of new jobs, which is the best possible thing that we can do to help the unemployed.
That is the position. Equally, however, I wish to make it clear that the Government do not regard the abatement


of unemployment benefit as a permanent measure. A great deal has been said about the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) when he was Secretary of State for Social Services, but I shall not swap quotations about that.
Of course, I understand the strong feelings of hon. Members on this, and in particular the argument made in the past by several of my hon. Friends, a number of whom are present today—that now that the benefit is in tax the abatement should be restored. I hope that, in their turn, they and the House will recognise that the words used by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State at my Department, still stand. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury said on the last occasion that we debated this, the abatement will be made good. The matter is not only under review, but at the right time it will be restored—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] In other words, the argument is not one of principle. The case for restoration is accepted. It is a question of timing. [Interruption.] Hon. Members seem not to wish to hear my answers.
I suggest, first, that the right time is an annual uprating. I can certainly give an assurance that the whole question of abatement is now being considered by the Government—in the light of available resources and of what has been said previously by Ministers, and also taking into account the views expressed by hon. Members in the House including, of course, my hon. Friends. I hope that the House will recognise that with only a few months to go before the uprating statement it would be wrong to press the Government further at this point.

Mr. Cormack: Again, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I am still rather perplexed, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury made precisely the same statement in July. He accepted that there was no difference about the principle and he said that the Government would restore the abatement. We believe that it should have been done long since. If for technical reasons it cannot be done immediately, we want it done by April at the latest. May we please have an assurance that that will be the case?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance in the terms that he seeks, but the Government are considering the whole question of the abatement in the light of the uprating statement which comes after the Budget in March. That is not the same as the position stated by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: As I have said, I believe that this should be done in April. However, my right hon. Friend seems to have gone a little further. Nevertheless, when a statement of this kind is made, there is a danger that if the Conservative vote against the Government is not so strong today as it was on the last occasion the Government may imagine that we have changed our minds. I make it clear to my right hon. Friend that he must take the previous vote into account rather than today's, because we shall return to this matter if something is not done.

Mr. Fowler: I can give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that I and the Government respect and understand his strong feeling, and those of all my hon. Friends. There is no question about that.
We cannot do everything in social security. Some make a special case for unemployment benefit, and, as I have just said, I recognise the sincerity with which that case is

put. However, I hope that it will also be recognised that the Government's funds are limited and that we are not prepared to promise ever more public spending, which can only come from increased taxes or increased national insurance contributions.
The Government are considering the whole question of the 5 per cent. abatement. We shall want to take into account the views that are expressed in this debate, and those that have been expressed previously by my hon. Friends. However, the Government should take all their decisions affecting the social security budget at one and the same time. On that basis I urge the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I do not wish to detain the House long on this rather sad occasion. The case is an overwhelming one and I shall stick precisely to the point of the 5 per cent. abatement. The position could not have been put better than it was by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir. I. Gilmour) during the Queen's Speech debate, when he said:
It is astonishing that neither the Secretary of State nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer were able to say unequivocally this afternoon that the 5 per cent was to be restored. They know perfectly well that the fact that it has not been restored is disgraceful. I can see no conceivable reason why that has not been done."—[Official Report, 8 November 1982; Vol. 31, c. 345.]
I agree with the right hon. Member. Nor can there be any question as to the Government's commitment on this matter. The Secretary of State must know that his predecessor gave a clear commitment in Committee on the Social Security (No. 2) Bill that the abatement would be restored. He said:
as the unemployment benefit comes into tax so the rationale for the 5 per cent. abatement ends."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 April 1980; c. 526.]
That is the sum of the argument, and it does not need to be elaborated on.
However, having heard the Secretary of State, I must ask whether any self-respecting Back Bencher could buy a second-hand undertaking in that form from this man? There is no conceivable reason to believe that the form of words that has been repeatedly reiterated to Tory Back Benchers should be believed when reiterated yet again.
There is no discernible advance from the Government. We should need a microscope to find the progress referred to by the Secretary of State. There is no progress. My colleagues shall be voting tonight with the Labour Party. We agree with every word of the motion. In the word of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. it is a "disgrace" that the abatement has not been restored. It is one of the things that will cause the Government lasting regret when they reach the next general election.

Mr. Chris Patten: I shall be brief, but not as brief as the hon Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas).
We have had three debates so far on this issue—this is the fourth. The House knows all the arguments and equally knows that the Government do not have an argument. If we did not know that before, we should have known it from my right hon. Friend's speech this evening. Shorn of


its customary charm, that speech added nothing to our knowledge of these matters. As concessions go, that of my right hon. Friend was a trifle on the thin side.
Each time that we have debated this issue—on new clauses 4 and 13 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill and on amendments to clauses 29 and 30 of the Finance Bill—the consequence of the Government being defeated would have been to restore the abatement. Therefore, in March I voted against the Government, in April I voted against the Government, and I should have voted in July against the Government if I had not been prevented from doing so by my appendix—or, rather, the lack of it. The rationale—I think that that is what it is called—of the abatement disappeared when we brought the benefit into tax and therefore, as people have argued ever since, we should restore the abatement.
Tonight the issue is slightly different. I understand why the Opposition have done what they have done. It is called parliamentary tactics. There is no reason why Oppositions should not try to embarass Governments and, indeed, their supporters from time to time. So I stand embarrassed. However, if we pass this motion, it will not restore the abatement, as would have happened on previous occasions when debating substantive legislation. So I feel under no obligation, as I did on previous occasions, to go into the Lobby with the Opposition. I see no reason why I should play their games. We might be wet—that is, we might be Tories—but I do not believe that I am wet behind the ears. So I shall not play the Opposition's game.
When an opportunity arises, if the Minister's concession is not quite as wholehearted next spring as it appeared to be today and if the Government do not see sense and do their duty, I shall again attempt to encourage as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends as I can to vote against the Government and defeat them. Tonight, however, with a marked absence of heroism, I shall abstain.
However, in future, if the Government do not change their mind, I shall press the House to reject the Government's case on a number of grounds. First, I do not want to indulge in an exegesis of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) called the sacred texts. I am prepared to rest my case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said in a memorable speech—that is overstating it; rather, I should say in a speech that we remember—the first time that we debated the issue. On that occasion, my hon. Friend said:
There is no doubt that many hon. Members, and people outside the House, believed that the abatement would be made good when unemployment benfit was brought into taxation. There is also no doubt that Ministers have made statements that gave colour to that belief."—[Official Report, 18 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 516.]
I shall put it no stronger than that—"gave colour to that belief'.
To some extent, this issue touches on the Government's integrity. Resolution is a perfectly splendid thing when governing this country though it is always dangerous when one starts to confuse it with obstinacy. Resolution is nevertheless very fine in governing this country, but so, too, are integrity and a certain generosity of spirit. In this case, we may have forgotten about those two qualities.
My second argument, which I have mentioned before, comes to what I believe is the kernel of the Government's intellectual case about what has happened to the economy

in the past two to three years. The Government's case, as I understand it, is that the ranks of the unemployed are the innocent casualties in the attempt to reverse a decade or more of industrial decline and to abate inflation. Whatever else one does with innocent casualties, it seems to me that the last thing one does is to subject them to what amounts to double taxation. If the Government were talking about the double taxation of doctors or bankers, or capital gains, many of my hon. Friends would be worried. We should be even more worried about the double taxation of families, many of whom are having to scrape by each week on about the cost of a dinner for two at Wilton's. That should matter to the Conservative Party more than it appears to do.
We know about the cost of restoration. It would cost about £60 million in a full year, which is about one tenth of the total value of the revenue raised from taxing the benefit. Cost is not an argument, but perhaps we have found one. On the radio last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, in what I take to be an attempt to defend the Government's position, said:
It would be really quite wrong at a time when we are asking people to be reasonable in their pay demands … to keep on remorselessly increasing benefits to those out of work.
It depends what one means by "remorselessly". I imagine that my right hon. Friend had temporarily forgotten about the abolition of the earnings-related supplement. I imagine that the cut in child benefit had slipped his mind, or perhaps that is where the word "remorselessly" comes in.
The last time that the House debated this subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) made some exceptionally sensible remarks about the relationship between pay and benefits. I understand why it is a little more difficult for the Government when, for a change—it does not often occur—pay settlements are increasing by less than the percentage increase in unemployment benefit.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham might say, with respect to the Government, they should have thought of that before they started going down such a road. The Government cannot expect the unemployed to pay the abatement just because the Government cannot get out of the difficulty without embarrassment.
The point was made fairly by my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) when he said:
The issue will not go away. The longer it is left, the harder it will be to settle."—[Official Report, 13 July 1982; Vol 27, c. 861.]—That is correct. With unemployment at 3 million and rising, why must we cut benefits in order to restore the incentive to work? All the evidence suggests that people are far better off in work. The overwhelming majority of those out of work would prefer to be working.
There is some saloon bar prejudice to the contrary, but I do not imagine that this Government wish to run the country on the basis of saloon bar anecdotes. At a time when the gap between unemployment benefits and average earnings is increasing and at a time when the number out of work is increasing dramatically, it is ridiculous to suggest that we have a problem about the incentive to work. That is a cock and bull argument. The problem is not one of restoring an incentive to work but of restoring the prospects of work for those who want it. I hope that my right hon. Friends will abandon that ludicrous proposition.
The first day that we debated unemployment benefit abatement, we were told that the abatement would be


restored "at the right time". I understand that the Government have not really made any allowance on that in its concessions at the Dispatch Box tonight. We were promised the abatement at the right time and that time appears to be now. The Government should not forget that.
I should be prepared to vote with the Government if they gave the House an early date at which they would restore the abatement, but until they do so I shall not support them. Flannel is not enough and fudge is not bankable.
I can see the case for what P. G. Wodehouse would have described as being a "tough egg" on the economy. Although I would not entirely take that view, I can understand the monetarist case. I cannot see the case for being mean. There has been much exaggerated argument as to whether the Conservative Party has changed for the worse in the past few years. Although I believe that opinion to be exaggerated, it is difficult to see a Harold Macmillan or Iain Macleod or Rab Butler coming to the Dispatch Box and putting the case for the matters that the Government are asking us to swallow.
I hope that the Government will see sense and that the abatement will be restored. I hope that several of my right hon. and hon. Friends will abstain tonight and that the Conservative Party will not entirely forget either its Tory tradition or its honour.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What we have heard from the Conservative Benches has been profoundly disappointing. The Secretary of State suggested that there is no extra money for the unemployed now. For today's unemployed, that means no extra money at all, although something may be done in 12 months time. Conservative Back-Bench Members are also unwilling to help today's unemployed. There may be pressure to do something about tomorrow's unemployed, but there is no hope for those out of work now. I worry that today's unemployed should receive a decent benefit, although it is also important to do something for tomorrow's unemployed.
Those who have been unemployed for the past four months have received unemployment benefit that is 2 per cent. below what it should have been because the Government incorrectly estimated the inflation rate last year. Benefit has been reduced by 5 per cent. because of clawback and it may also be taxed. The unemployed have been penalised in three ways already and the Government are prepared to do nothing for that group. The most that they can hope for is an announcement in the Budget, but the Minister gave no hope that any concession in the Budget would be backdated. We know that backdating is difficult administratively.
The Secretary of State talked about putting unemployment benefit in the context of other benefits. He should put it in the context of the unemployed in my constituency. I assume that there are some unemployed in his constituency and that some of them come to his advice surgery and ask for help. How does he face the problems that they present? Last week, a lady came to my surgery—she was clearly a careful housekeeper who would not waste money on silly purchases—and presented me with a simple problem. The grill and oven on her cooker had stopped working. How could she save, out of her husband's unemployment benefit, sufficient money to have it repaired? She was talking about £25 to £30, which was an impossible sum to

her. Her second problem was that the washing machine had finally packed up on her. With three young children, but not very young children, the supplementary benefit rules could not help her.
Those who struggle on today's unemployment benefit must cope with such problems, knowing that the replacement of most household equipment is impossible.
We must examine the meanness of the 5 per cent. abatement in that context. We must also add the illogicality of what some have referred to as double taxation. It is not double, but triple, taxation. National insurance contributions are taken out of one's income after tax, so they have already been taxed. One Treasury Minister suggested that the revenue to the Exchequer of taxing national insurance contributions was about £2 billion. It seems logical to say "We do not wish to tax the contribution but we wish to tax it when you claim benefit". However, having said that we want to tax the contribution, it is illogical to tax the benefit. The Government then said that this was administratively difficult and introduced the 5 per cent. abatement, following which the benefit was brought into taxation. Effectively, that is triple taxation of unemployment benefit.
It is appalling that those burdens should be imposed on people with such a standard of living. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) said that the level of benefit for a married man with two children was the equivalent of a meal for two at a particular restaurant. We must take into account the amount of money available for food in the case of the unemployed. When we consider that only 40p to 50p per person can be spent on each main meal during the week, we begin to realise the impossibilities of getting by on unemployment benefit.
The benefit may be adequate for people who are unemployed for three, four or five weeks, because they can defer all items of capital equipment. However, many people must now survive for a year on unemployment benefit before going on to short-term supplementary benefit.
The Government's message seems to be: "You will continue to live on that benefit well into the future." They should restore the 5 per cent. now. They should not hide behind the fact that this is an Opposition motion or that it is normal to make such announcements in the Budget. The unemployed need the money now, and if the Government do not give it now, the unemployed will get nothing.

Mr. Jim Lester: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), because he and I have been involved in a non-stop debate for some time. Sometimes I lead, and sometimes he leads, but we have been consistent in both our words and our votes.
I do not intend to repeat the long speech that I made on 13 July, which is on the record in columns 861 to 865 of Hansard. I do not retract a word from those remarks.
I recall that when we made that real bid to put this matter right, the Government position was fairly represented by the Minister of State, Treasury. His defence was that the Government agreed in principle but that it was not the right time. From what the Secretary of State said today, I detect a delicate political move and that "the right time" has now become "currently considered". I welcome that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bath that it is not unreasonable for the Opposition to try to embarrass


the Government by tabling a motion which is not technically possible. For the same reason as my hon. Friend, I shall abstain tonight rather than vote in the Opposition Lobby. Had the Opposition been rather more skilful at whipping their Members during the debate on 13 July, there might have been no need for this debate tonight.

Mr. John: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that neither delicacy nor the need to guard our backs prevented us from voting with those hon. Members who tabled the amendment on that occasion.

Mr. Lester: I accept that totally, but that was the occasion when we could have achieved our objective. The same cannot be said about tonight's debate.
The principle that we have advanced time and again is not that this should be done in some annual review or announced in April. Rather, we seek to ensure—and we shall find some parliamentary means to achieve it—that the shortfall should be restored in the financial year in which the taxation was introduced. That occurred in July 1982, and we expect that the restoration will be made before July 1983.
I do not mind when the restoration is announced or whether it is introduced in the April Budget. The principle by which we stand is that the 5 per cent. abatement should be restored during the year in which taxation is introduced. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has shown the considerable tax benefits that the Government have enjoyed as a result of not restoring the benefit.
Some insidious points are heard outside rather than in the House. The first concerns the increase in the basic unemployment benefit to the 750,000 people who do not qualify for supplementary benefit because they have too much in savings. As we all know, those who qualify for it get a decrease in supplementary benefit if they get an increase in unemployment benefit so that their income remains the same. Those 750,000 are required to live for a year on the basic unemployment benefit.
It is argued that somehow the uprating of £25 a week for a single man and £45 a week for a married man causes pressure on wages and that that is a base from which trade unions calculate their wage demands. Since I heard that argument I have talked to many trade union negotiators and employers. Not one confirms the fact that they base wage negotiations on basic unemployment benefit. I hope that that sinks that fallacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath talked about saloon bar myths. I wish that they finished in saloon bars. That myth extends beyond saloon bars and I have evidence that it persists in board rooms.
My second point relates to the "Why work?" syndrome. After the last debate on this subject on 13 July I was approached by the managing director of one of the thousand largest companies in Britain. He said that I had all my facts wrong and that what I had said was cockeyed. He had evidence to show that one of his assemblers who worked 39 hours, was married with two children and living in a council house, whose gross pay was £92·60, was worse off than an unemployed man in similar circumstances. He gave me a piece of paper which I have here which showed that the take-home pay of the employed man was £71·36 while that of the unemployed man was £77. I passed that document to the Library. The

managing director said that he had had to negotiate a salary increase to cover that differential between the unemployed and the employed man.
The House of Commons Library—which I think is reasonably reliable in such matters—came up with figures that showed that the same man earning £92 a week would have take-home pay of £80·24, taking all allowances into account, while the unemployed man, far from his income being £77, took home £57·70. That is a difference of £22·54. I would be pleased if I thought that such myths finished in saloon bars. As has been said, people are better off in work. They want to work and they do not want to be on unemployment benefit.
The way forward is surely to use every parliamentary means to restore the 5 per cent. abatement in April if we want to see the fair taxation of unemployment benefit. Thresholds must then be raised to lift low incomes from any source, whether from employment or benefit, clear of taxation. That is an essential part of a benefit taxation. We should end the ridiculous anomaly under which the low-paid pay tax yet can claim family income supplement and pensioners pay tax yet qualify for rent and rate rebates. This question has come round four times and one has the feeling that is rather like an elephant straining at a gnat. Although it is a tiny pill for the Government to swallow, it would do much good to the House, to the body politic, and above all to the unemployed, who should concern us most.

Mr. David Alton: I am pleased to speak after the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) and I remember the speech that he made last July. I concur with much of what he and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) have said.
The hon. Member for Bath spoke about sacred texts. Conservative Members should have as their sacred text the article that the hon. Gentleman wrote in The Observer about two weeks ago. He described the Chancellor of the Exchequer's economic policies as
an intellectually ramshackle case which we are obliged to swallow.
I have never equated abstention with courage and I am disappointed to know that the words uttered by Conservative Members will be followed not by a vote with the official Opposition but by abstention.

Mr. Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if his precious alliance had turned out in force we would not be holding this debate tonight?

Mr. Alton: If the hon. Gentleman had seen the letter written by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) which appeared in The Guardian last week he would have read about the lie that is being put about that in some way alliance Members who did not turn up for that Division had a significant effect upon the result and he would realise that it was wrong to mislead the House in that way.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has indirectly accused me of telling an untruth and of misleading the House, but the fact of the matter is, as you know, that the majority on that occasion was in single figures and not all the members of the alliance were here.

Mr. Alton: I certainly was not implying that the hon. Gentleman told a lie. I suggested that by repeating a lie he was misleading the House.

Mr. Chris Patten: rose—

Mr. Richard Needham: rose—

Mr. Alton: My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) who was not present that evening was in hospital having a heart operation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not imply that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) was repeating a lie. the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his comment.

Mr. Alton: In that case, I happily withdraw my remark. However, I stand by the fact that it was the fault not of the alliance that the 5 per cent. cut was not abated, but of many Conservative Members, who say one thing and do another. The same thing will happen this evening, when Conservative Members abstain.

Mr. Chris Patten: I just want to clarify the point and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong. Will he assure the House that every alliance Member was here—with the exception of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross)—when we voted last time? Will he tell us his party's voting record on the previous two occasions?

Mr. Alton: I do not carry the figures from Hansard in my head; that is why I referred Conservative Members to a letter written by the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party, which appeared in The Guardian last week. He set the record straight and made it abundantly clear that it was not the fault of the Liberal or Social Democratic Parties that the measure was accepted. There is no point in trying to shift the blame to the alliance. We have made our position clear. We would retain unemployment benefits at their present level and ensure that they were increased and linked to inflation. There is no question of the alliance abstaining tonight, because we shall vote with the official Opposition.
It is a question not of playing parliamentary games, as the hon. Member for Bath implied, but of standing firm on issues about which we feel strongly. I represent one of the ten constituencies with the highest levels of unemployment. As a result, I feel strongly about this issue and I hope that Conservative Members will listen to some of my arguments. At the beginning of the debate the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) suggested that because 20 million people would be marginally better off—2 per cent. better off—through a miscalculation in the level of inflation, we should not be concerned about the abatement in unemployment benefit.
The article in The Guardian repeated the result of a survey carried out on behalf of the Child Poverty Action Group which showed that
only some 204,000 disabled people on mobility allowance and a larger group of people on one-parent benefit can be said to be better off since 1979. For the remaining millions, a series of cuts and changes in social security payments over the past three years has combined to reduce the value of their benefits.
The survey pointed out—the Secretary of State disputed it—that 9 million pensioners, far from making a real gain today, are worse off.
The article then referred to invalidity pensioners. It said that

some people are losing as much as £5·50 a week or £286 a year.
It then catalogues many other people who will be worse off. I do not know whether the Child Poverty Action Group or the Secretary of State has the figures right but I have normally found that the Child Poverty Action Group gets its arithmetic correct. I hope that Conservative Members will bear those points in mind when they come to vote this evening.
I believe it was William Blake who once said:
He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars.
Perhaps the Government should accept that advice. The Government have been singularly unsuccessful in observing that maxim. The 5 per cent. abatement will mean that the average unemployed single person will be £1·10p a week worse off. As the hon. Member for Bath said before, that is a total of about £60 million in a year, a relatively small amount—peanuts—in terms of the funds and resources available to the Government.
If the Christmas bonus for pensioners had been index-linked and increased with inflation, according to the Government's figures it would be worth £35 instead of £10. Again, that is a minute particular and perhaps a small matter, but for 10 million pensioners that £200 million would mean a great deal this Christmas.
The unified housing benefit regulations have been referred to by hon. Members. They come into force at the same time as abatement of unemployment benefit and replace rent rebates, rate rebates and rent allowances. What does that mean? It means that the 2 million poorest wage earners—we have heard before about the "Why work?" syndrome—will be 75p a week worse off. Again, the Government have not paid sufficient regard to "minute particulars."
We have heard a great deal about the unfairness of what is being done. In Britain today, as a result of the Government's monetarist policies, one in eight people is unemployed. In my area of Merseyside the figure is one in five. In Britain, 1,600 people a day have become unemployed—one every minute—since the Government were elected to office. Half the 3·2 million unemployed are in that position as a direct result of the Government's policies. Therefore, the Government have a special responsibility to do something about those people who are languishing in the dole queue.
We have heard a great deal about unfairness. In the words of Shakespeare,
Fair is foul and foul is fair
for many of the people of Liverpool who are languishing on the dole. About 45 per cent. of those living in inner city Liverpool are currently registered as out of work. At the Leece Street employment office—I almost made a Freudian slip: unemployment office would be a more appropriate term, because soon there will be more people out of work than in work in that area—14,000 people are registered as unemployed. In the nearby Old Swan employment office, 15,000 people are registered as out of work.
Ministers should not be surprised when they see the social consequences which have erupted on the streets in Toxteth, central Liverpool, Brixton and elsewhere. The devil will always find mischief for idle hands. In places such as Liverpool, 89,000 people have lost their jobs in the past 10 years and 45 per cent. of the people in central Liverpool are out of work. Compare those figures with the 4 per cent. out of work in the constituencies of many hon.


Members in the South-East of England. That is unfair. The Government should pay special regard to the problems of disadvantaged areas such as Merseyside.
It is costing every family in work £1,000 a year to keep those out of work on the dole queue. It costs £5,000 a year and more, according to Treasury figures, in unemployment benefits, social security and the loss of tax that people would otherwise be earning. People do not want benefits. They want jobs. The Government are failing to provide them.
In my area, since the riots last year, the Government have handed out patrimony. They appointed the funeral director for Merseyside, the Secretary of State for the Environment. Since he came to us, we have lost another 10,000 jobs in the city of Liverpool. Instead of solving that problem, 10,000 trees have been planted on Liverpool's derelict land. Trees are no substitute for jobs. Government Members should realise the social consequences of doing nothing tangible to provide work for the unemployed, or at least to ensure that their standard of living is maintained.
Since the Government were elected, Liverpool has lost £63 million in rate support grant settlement. People have suffered as a result. For instance, the city council is contemplating closing the local welfare rights centre. It is there to help the unemployed and people receiving benefits. It has to close because the council cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If resources are not provided councils have to take such unpalatable decisions. That rights centre has dealt with over 4,000 cases since 1978.
The Government are waging a mean attack. It is miserable and mean to reduce funds for the most vulnerable. Last week I made another literary allusion when I suggested that Scrooge was alive and well and living in Downing Street. I was wrong. Scrooge saw the error of his ways. I doubt whether this Government will. They will have to face the ghost of elections yet to come. When they face the people, the people will treat them as they deserve to be treated for their mean and miserable act of reducing benefits to the poorest wage earners, the most vulnerable, the weakest and the most in need. For that reason we shall support the official Opposition tonight.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I shall not attempt to lecture the House so I shall not quote Blake or Shakespeare. When I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services I was reminded of Richter talking to the second flute. He said:
Your damned nonsense can I stand once or twice but sometimes always by God never".
This is the most ridiculous debate that the House has been obliged to have. We have been round the course so many times. We have preached simply the message that we thought that the Government had embraced—that when certain things came into tax certain other things would happen.
The occasion is made particularly sad for me because tonight the Secretary of State completely accepted the logic of that argument. The fallacies and the thinness of his case were marvellously exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten). We were sorry that on the last occasion my hon. Friend lost his appendix and could not be with us. Tonight he has shown that he has not lost

his eloquence. He demonstrated, as few people can, and in a way that he has done consistently in articles in the press and in speeches in the House, just what a petty, mean nonsense this is.
A Government's reputation is made up, not of grand gestures and noble achievements, but of the little, not always unremembered, acts of kindness. For a Government to be mean in small things puts it at risk of failure in big things. The Government have made considerable achievements on the economic front. When they are obliged by policies that they are determined to pursue to cause the casualties referred to tonight, there is a pressing obligation upon them to do everything possible to help.
There is no politician in the House nor a party in the country that can with any credibility promise to reduce the dole queue significantly in the next four or five years, no matter what was said from Walworth Road last week. The fact remains that we are living with a real unemployment problem. But those statistics are made up of individual cases. Each one is a human tragedy.
It is inexcusable for us not to put that right at the earliest possible opportunity. The Government could have done so in July. We were placed in a circumstance that we did not wish—having to vote against our Government. Opposition Members who were here when their party was in Government know that that is not something that one does lightly. Nevertheless, we felt that we had no alternative. The Government put us in that position. Indeed, some of us have been in those circumstances before. In the April debate, some of us took the view that because the country was in the middle of an international crisis we should not vote. We did not. But in July we did, just as some of us voted in March.
What do we do tonight? I accept the argument and the logic of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath. It is not possible for the 5 per cent. abatement to be restored as a result of a Division tonight. We know that. Therefore, abstention, while it is never an attractive posture, is a reasonably honourable course. I hope, however, that we shall not be obliged to abstain.
In a melodious but unsatisfactory speech, my right hon. Friend showed that the Government will put the matter right at some time. All that his hon. Friend has to do when he makes his winding-up speech is say that the matter will be put right—in April at the latest. He need only say that it will be done in this tax year. He could then have the support of his hon. Friends here. He will know that the Government's reputation, while it may have been dented, will not have been badly tarnished and that he has restored the integrity and honour that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath talked about.
From time to time, Governments do the most extraordinary things. It is not worth the candle. Although the present matter is far more important, it reminds me of the ridiculous campaign more than 10 years ago on museum charges. The sum was paltry. The logic was indefensible and yet the Government persisted. The sum here is relatively paltry. The logic is utterly indefensible. Why cannot the Government do something?
It is a bit much having to listen to two logically indefensible arguments in a day. Some of us found this afternoon's statement a little difficult to swallow. This evening, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is telling us that for some extraordinary reason he cannot exactly announce the precise time now. I do not believe


that there is any reason. I urge him to think of those who are unemployed in our constituencies. We all must think of them. As I said on a previous occasion when we debated these matters, there was a time when one could talk realistically and honestly in saloon bars and elsewhere about the people who did not want to work. They represent the minutest fraction of those who are out of work today.
In the West Midlands where unemployment has increased from about 5 per cent. to more than 16 per cent., and in pockets is higher than 20 per cent., there are few people who do not want to work. The vast majority do. They have every right to resent double taxation. They have every right to feel that the Government are not showing care, concern and understanding of their plight if they persist in this policy of folly.
I therefore make an appeal once more to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. Governments make mistakes. It is no bad thing, I beseech them in the words of Cromwell—one person that I shall quote—
think it possible you may be mistaken".
Governments make mistakes. Admit it and put it right this evening. Then a record that is not without its glorious moments will at least have one stain removed. Now is the time to do it. Do not let us be put in the ridiculous position of being accused of disloyalty on our own Benches because we stand up for the traditional one-nation principles of a true Tory party to which we are proud to belong.

9 pm

Mr. George Park: Notices were at one time frequently displayed in the corner shop, saying "Don't ask for credit because a refusal will give offence." Tonight, the Government are asking hon. Members to give credit to a vague promise that something will be done about restoring the 5 per cent. unemployment benefit at some vague time in the future. That is not good enough. It causes offence not only on the Labour Benches in this House but among the unemployed outside. Like the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), I represent a West Midlands constituency and know of the deep feeling that exists.
No specific promise has been given for the future. With honourable exceptions among some Conservative Members who have spoken in this debate, there is the feeling among members of the Tory Party and its supporters that the unemployed are somehow living the life of Riley at the expense of the taxpayer and have no urge to find work. The realities of trying to live on unemployment benefit are considerably different, as anyone who has been unemployed will testify.
There are 62 people in Coventry chasing every job that is advertised. The vast majority of the unemployed want to work. However, the possibilities become fewer as week succeeds week. In the past year, 4,000 people have been made redundant by major firms in Coventry. That process continues. Hundreds more are projected as far ahead as April next year by the General Electric Company, not because of lack of orders but because of new technology. April is, of course, the magic date when several hon. Members say that the cut might be restored.
Male unemployment in Coventry has already reached 20 per cent. In some pockets, the figure is even higher. When hon. Members representing the area ask to see the appropriate Minister about redundancies or proposals to shut machine tool firms, the answer is that the Minister

does not believe that he should intervene. In the same way, the Secretary of State for Social Services does not want to know about the unemployed.
The 5 per cent. should be restored in the year that tax is introduced. We are talking about 750,000 people who are almost, although not quite, at the bottom of the heap. Any savings that they may have soon disappear. That erodes another thing that is dear to the Tory heart, which is that one should stand on one's own feet. What incentive is there to save if, through no fault of his own, a man is sacked, which means that he must start drawing on his savings, not to maintain his normal standard of living but just to carry on living? That is the situation of people on the dole today.
The apt adjective "mean" has been used time and again. The Government have taken a mean approach. The amount of money involved is peanuts in the total budget. However, that is part of the approach by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on pensions. He proposes to claw back some pensions that he says people are receiving in advance. The Prime Minister hastily papers over the facts by trying to tell the pensioners that they will receive an early bonus of £50 this year. How ludicrous that is.
That attitude of toughness is becoming a virility symbol among members of the Government. It seems that unless they are seen to be tough they will not remain in their jobs long. However, the unemployed are not interested in whether Secretaries of State are virile. They want fair treatment now.

Mr. Richard Needham: It was a pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, on previous occasions we have not been able to hear his views on the argument. I detected a glimmer of hope in what he said. It was a much greater pleasure to listen to him than to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), who, once again, is not present. He was not here for the previous debate, nor at the previous vote, when he might have been here.
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's speech. I wanted to find in it sufficient reassurance that the 5 per cent. would be restored next March. I am sure that he and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State want that very much. However, I believe that the Government somewhat resemble the Liberal-Democratic Party in Japan. There is a Fowler faction and a Howe faction.
The Howe faction does not often put its arguments in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) said that those arguments were better displayed in saloon bars and my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) said that they were better displayed in board rooms. Wherever they are displayed, in the corridors of power they certainly have some influence. Because they have influence, however much my right hon. Friend says that he hopes to restore the abatement, I have yet to be convinced that he has the power to do so.
Therefore, it would be unwise of my hon. Friends who think like me to trust entirely the outcome and to cast our votes with the Government. which might give the Howe faction some reason to believe that the argument had been won and that the matter could be delayed once again. I shall briefly take the argument out of the saloon bar or the board room and put it on the Floor of the House. Two points need to be answered.
The first argument is that those in work who are low paid will feel aggrieved if the unemployed receive more money, because they receive lower pay increases, particularly at the moment, and that high wage demands are often the cause of people becoming unemployed. Those made redundant are often the colleagues of those who stay. People do not necessarily become unemployed because they are reckless in their wage demands. Often the work force is being slimmed down, and those who stay have not made a greater or a lesser pay demand than those who go.
Like the old-age pension, unemployment benefit is paid from the national insurance fund. The Government argue that the fund is separate; it collects contributions and pays benefits to people who have contributed over a set period. It pays out in return for past payment in by the contributor, and it would seem strange if the low-paid felt aggrieved at having to pay from their wages towards unemployment benefit when the contribution system has been accepted for many years. That may be true in theory, but in reality it is a pay-as-you-go scheme and has no funding. That is an anomaly that the House should consider.
But if the low-paid worker who is sensible over his wage increases feels aggrieved about the money paid to the unemployed, many of whom may have been his colleagues, why should he not feel equally aggrieved at pension increases, as they, too, come out of the fund? The unemployed are not different from the pensioners in that respect.
I welcome the increases in benefit and all the help that my right hon. Friend has given, but why should much of it have to come from taxing those who have been made unemployed? Sooner or later the unemployed will become pensioners, when they will be entitled to a higher level of pension at a rate of increase greater than inflation.
If the argument were taken to its logical conclusion, we would have a ridiculous proposition. Many current pensioners were unemployed in the 1930s and received benefits for that time from those who remained in work. Is it suggested that those who were out of work in the 1930s and who were benefited by those who were in work should have 5 per cent. deducted from their pensions to compensate for the fact that others had to support them in the 1930s? That is ludicrous.
The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that the national insurance fund is a separate fund to which people contribute and out of which they get benefits and in the next breath suggest that the contributions from the low-paid go directly to people who have become unemployed.
The second argument propounded in the smoking rooms is that the difference in income between those in and those out of work is too narrow and that there is no incentive to find work. It has already been said that for most people work is natural, vacancies are almost nonexistent and the answer is to raise thresholds and not to tax benefits.
One point that has not been mentioned has some validity. There is endless anecdotal evidence about the lack of plumbers, gardeners, window cleaners, decorators and so on. One hears the argument constantly, particularly in the South-East, that it is difficult to find someone to do such jobs. The cut in benefit will not flush skiving carpenters out of the woodwork where they have

supposedly lived in such comfort. Such people simply do not exist, or if they exist they are in the wrong place. Cutting their benefit makes it more difficult for them to find work elsewhere. They need help with travelling costs for retraining. We must find ways to encourage people to move and we must provide adequate facilities to produce new skills or skills such as plumbing that are in short supply.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Needham: No, I must get on.
It is not sufficient to say that people must price themselves back into work until the Government can tell them what work they can price themselves back into. One can cut benefit to zero without producing one new plumber. There are millions of unemployed in Africa and Asia and they have no unemployment benefit, but there are remarkably few plumbers among them. Sufficient money should be provided for a man and his family to maintain their dignity while the breadwinner searches for new employment and a new skill. Just as we protect the old against the recession, so must we protect the unemployed.
I make no apology for putting forward the arguments of the Howe faction because in all honesty they should be deployed in the House and not always outside and they should be seen to be supported by those who believe in them. I believe that those arguments are false, but they carry great weight in the chambers and corridors of power. Therefore, much as I respect the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hope that he gave us, I am not convinced that he will be able to achieve this uprating next March unless it is made absolutely clear to him and to the Government that they will not have the support in the Lobby to do otherwise.
I hope that enough of my hon. Friends will abstain today to ensure that the numbers are such that the Government will not dare in any circumstances to go back on the glimmer of hope that they have given us.

Mr. Frank Haynes: This is not a matter for abstention. Conservative Members should vote for the Opposition motion. If anyone thinks that abstaining will help the situation, he has another think coming. I admire those Conservative Members who have been honest and spoken from the heart about restoration of the 5 per cent. abatement. Many of them rebelled last time, but they seem to have thrown in the towel. That is clear from their contributions today.
I do not think that any Conservative Members understand unemployment. They do not have a clue. There are too many silver spoons over there. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may disagree. If they had ever held a really large, No. 10 size shovel, I might listen to them, but such is not the case. The real workers and the true representatives of the workers of the nation are all in the Opposition. The Conservatives are trying to bury the workers.
The hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) talked about restoration of the abatement, but he did not say that he would vote with the Opposition. I hope that he will, because there is no other way to shift the Government. Conservative Members should remember well enough the many promises that were made by their party in May 1979. All those promises have been broken. We all saw the


posters on the hoardings about unemployment and how the Conservatives would reduce it. They were going to put the hospital service right. They were displaying all their compassion to the electorate, and the electorate fell for it. Let them just wait until next time. The electorate fell for it, but when the Government came into office they went in a different direction. Instead of reducing unemployment, they have more than doubled it.
At the same time, the Government have started to crucify those poor beggars who are trying to get work. They are made unemployed, but when it comes to benefits—incidentally, when they were working they paid to enjoy the benefit when anything such as sickness, unemployment or accident happened—the Government have the audacity to deny them their rights. At the next election, the electorate will deny the Tory Party what it sees as its rights. The electorate have had a real lesson and a real bashing, particularly the workers.
People want work. I remember when the Conservative candidate walked the streets of my constituency talking about scroungers, as did all Tory Members. There are getting on for 4 million of them now and I bet the Government are proud of it, because that was their intention. They wanted to bash the workers to get them into line, and make them do just what the Government wanted them to do. Those days happened in the 1930s. The youngsters of today who are supposed to be working have had a real lesson, one that their forefathers learnt way back in the 1930s.
The Tory Party does not represent the workers, it represents a different class. I am sick to death of hearing about the one-nation that we are supposed to have. All the Tories talk about it, including the Prime Minister. However, there is no doubt that there are two nations in this country—the working class and the people who have the money. All Tory Members have benefited from some of the policies being put through by the Government.
At long last, the people are waking up to what is going on. There is no doubt that the Government will get their lesson when the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister is prepared to go to the nation and let the people decide. I felt I had to make a small contribution to make it clear how the Labour Party feels, and how the people feel outside because the Government have ditched them. The people will not forget it. They will remember these things on the day of the next election.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: After that enthusiastic speech on a motion that even technically would not stand up, I point out to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) that a large number of ordinary workers vote for the Conservative Party, and there are many more who will still vote for the Conservative Party at the next general election. He must know that among the workers in his constituency there are some of the best paid people in the country. To suggest that the workers are all badly paid is not realistic.

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) will put that right.

Mr. Lewis: I shall read it in Hansard tomorrow to make sure that I got it right.
I shall turn my attention to my Front Bench instead. This matter has been around too long for our comfort. Spring has turned to summer, summer has turned to winter and we are still discussing an abatement that should have been removed long ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) was making speeches about the abatement when he had his appendix. He is now making speeches about it having lost his appendix.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench may be smiling, but when this issue started in Committee there was soon a reshuffle of Ministers. So my right hon. Friend should be careful, because I think another reshuffle of Ministers is on its way—if leaks are anything to go by, although I am not entirely certain whether leaks are anything to go by now.
There was supposed to be a leak two days ago, to the effect that the Cabinet had discussed this matter and decided to make a concession. The Cabinet must then have had a quick meeting in the Lobby and decided that this was one leak that they wanted to correct, and that they would not make a concession tonight. I understand that. Clearly, this is a political ploy by the Opposition to try to put the Government and all of us on the spot. What surprises me is that, although there will be a great rush of bodies into the Lobby tonight, there is no sense of great occasion on the Opposition Benches. In fact, I am gratified that apparently more people are listening to me than listened either to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) or my right hon. Friend. Indeed, the Liberal-Social Democratic alliance Members are even fewer in number.
I have a problem. My right hon. Friend went further tonight than previous Ministers have done on the matter. Perhaps I may be allowed to give my assessment of what he said. He said two things—and he will correct me if I am wrong. First, he confirmed that the abatement was temporary, and that it would go. Secondly, he said that the right time to deal with it was when the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he as the Minister considered all these matters in the Budget.
It seems to me, therefore, that the Government must do something about the abatement, because there is not much time between March and the election, even if it is in 1984. The Government would be reneging on the promise that the Minister made at the Dispatch Box tonight if he did nothing about it. He could not deal with it before the next general election if he did not keep to what he said tonight.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is repeating what the Minister said, but surely the Minister made it perfectly clear—I intervened, as the hon. Gentleman may remember—that the right time to do it, if it is to be done at all, is when the uprating of benefits takes place. At the earliest, that would be next November, so at the very least, unemployed people will have to wait another 12 months.

Mr. Lewis: The fact remains that whatever uprating takes place has to be announced at the time of the Budget.
Whatever I do tonight, my right hon. Friend should understand that if the Government do not deal with the matter in the Budget, I will not only do what I have previously done and refuse to support the Government in the Lobby, but I shall take every action to persuade as many of my hon. Friends as I can to do the same. The Government had a thin enough majority last time. In March 1983, they cannot afford to have many more Conservative Members against them on this matter. The


sum is paltry compared with the total budget. A promise was undoubtedly made and it has been repeated tonight. I realise that the promise would be difficult to affirm specifically now because of the way in which the Opposition motion is phrased. The uprating can be made only in a full year, so it must be made in March. The payment should have been made before, but it must be made in March for several reasons. The Government must do something or they will lose credibility. The Government must also be shown to be compassionate towards the poorest members of the community. Finally, the Government must understand that when their own Back-Bench Members feel strongly on a subject the Government are justified in changing their view.

Mr. John: Only one speech has been made from the Conservative Benches in defence of the Secretary of State, and that was his own. I should not misrepresent the rather paltry and lacklustre speech of the Secretary of State if I said that he was not so much defending his policy as avoiding the consequences. He spoke about uprating and many other things. It was only with the utmost reluctance and with pressure from the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) that the Secretary of State returned to the abatement of unemployment benefit at all. He touched on the subject lightly, but only to leave it again on a well-known tangent.
The Secretary of State used a special form of words. Shortly before giving a quotation the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West declared his aversion to all who use quotations. However, I must say of the Secretary of State's speech what Shaw said about language—that it was given to us to conceal our thoughts. No one did a better job than the Secretary of State in concealing the meaning of words. We all recognise that Ministers must be careful in their use of words from time to time, but rarely have such cloudy phrases moved a matter forward not one jot.
If the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) can really discern any movement in what the Secretary of State said, pathology has missed a great practitioner. So advanced is the rigor mortis in the words used by the Secretary of State that any discernible change in meaning must be a matter for a post mortem examination.
The Minister of State, Treasury said that the matter was now being actively considered, whereas, presumably, inertia existed before. On 13 July he said.
I have since reaffirmed that at the right time this benefit will be made good.
That has a familiar ring that we have heard in each of the three previous debates on the subject. He continued:
The matter is under review. It will be kept under review and I can only repeat that at the right time, it will be made good."—[Official Report, 13 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 906.]

Mr. Chris Patten: I do not remember accusing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of being sensible. If he has made any movement, it is measurable only in millimetres. That is why I shall abstain tonight, as I hope will my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. John: I envy the hon. Member for Bath his mental micrometer, because most of us could not discern any measurable movement. However, perhaps that slight movement is sufficient for the hon. Member to abstain rather than vote against the motion tonight.
The Secretary of State's speech was tawdry because, for example, we are talking about a married couple, with a dependent wife, who enjoy a weekly income of £40 a week on the uprating, at a time when average industrial earnings are more than £1·60 a week. We are talking about those to whom small sums such as £1·60 a week are important in their budgeting and in the prevention of the slide into dire poverty which is all too frequently a concomitant of unemployment. Yet, even if one believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do something different in the next Budget—this will be the third year of abatements—at the earliest, the 5 per cent. surcharge cannot be rectified before November 1983. A married man with a dependent wife who becomes unemployed today will receive £91 less because of the 5 per cent. surcharge.
The Secretary of State made great play of the uprating of benefits. The principle is not the uprating of benefits, but that the unemployed receive only 95 per cent. of what is due to them. He talked about the unemployed having had to make sacrifices because of the fight against inflation, but that is not why the abatement was introduced. It was introduced by his predecessor in lieu of taxation because no scheme was ready. If the Secretary of State now says that the abatement is a contribution towards the fight against inflation, it means that the unemployed are paying twice, because their benefit is taxed and 5 per cent. has been cut from it in anticipation of taxation. The Secretary of State should not pretend that that is the reason.
We have heard much talk about saloon bars this evening, and some hon. Members talked as though they were the people outside. However, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) brought us back rather nearer to the corridors of power and to the Treasury Minister who said that the total package was likely to improve work incentives. The greatest work incentive is the availability of work. Not many people on the unemployment register would wish to be there for a second longer than they must, and it causes them great unhappiness to be there. If that is the unspoken philosophy behind the cut, it is unjust and, hypocritical and the House should be unworthy to carry on with it.
What is the price of justice? We hear about both vast and small sums. The Treasury believes, with undershoots and overshoots, that £60 million is a small sum. I asked, so far without success but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will reply, how much taxation has been taken from the unemployed since last July. At present, in a full year, the Secretary of State is making a 10 to 1 profit on the unemployed because the benefit has been taxed and the cut of £60 million meant that he could tax the entire benefit, with a yield of £650 million.
It is nonsense to suggest that £650 million is crucial to the future of our economy, whereas £590 million would destroy its moral fibre. The price of justice is always worth paying, be it large or small. When we have a proposition whereby money was taken from the unemployed because of the advent of taxation two years before the taxation came in, there is no justification for retaining the cut. Neither the Secretary of State nor anyone in the House has justified the cut.
We are told that there are inestimable technical problems. There are always technical problems when this House seeks to carry out a simple act of justice. It is said that it is only at the witching hour—or, like Brigadoon, once every 100 years when the ghost appears—that we can


rectify a fault. All that is needed—this is so whether it is done immediately, as the motion seeks, or next April—to remedy the abatement is an order, and I promise the Secretary of State that if he introduced such an order tomorrow it would go through on the nod. Let there be no argument that we must wait for a year to put this matter right. We could do so tomorrow or we could do it in the Budget. However, we should not wait because we are cheating the unemployed by this double taxation.
What action should be taken by Conservative Members who are critical of the 5 per cent. abatement? They have talked much about the saloon bar. That surprises me, because they seem to be total abstainers rather than frequenters of the saloon bar. Apparently, not one of those hon. Members will join the Opposition in the Lobby. Instead, they will reserve their efforts for next time, which effectively means another four months.
I excuse no one who by design or accident prevented this measure from being carried last July. No part of my efforts caused it to fail. A principle is a principle irrespective of who pursues it. One Conservative Member talked about a party game. In that sense, all parliamentary manoeuvres are games, but it is common ground with most of us that this injustice should be put right at the earliest possible opportunity. That is why I reject the Secretary of State's tawdry approach. His speech was wholly unworthy of a Minister.
The only way for Conservative Members to show the Chancellor that they are serious—he has no voluntary intention of restoring this abatement—is to vote with the Opposition. In July, we voted with Conservative Members who tabled the amendment, even though it would have been easy to table our own amendment and to seek the glory—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) who moved the amendment in July got much publicity and favour out of it—[Interruption.] I shall not talk to the Secretary of State who is totally irredeemable, as his speech showed. He is barely capable of understanding the most fundamental of these problems—[Interruption.] Neither shall I talk to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who rarely but noisily intervenes in such debates.
I shall, however, talk to the total abstainers. There is always a case for taking a drink for medicinal purposes. The medicinal purpose now is to show the Government that they cannot cheat the unemployed. I therefore invite those Conservative Members to join us in the Lobby and to pass the motion.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The most remarkable thing about the debate is that it has ended with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) refusing to talk to almost all Conservative Members and it started with him virtually talking to himself by the look of the Labour Benches at that time.
It has been astonishing, given the talk of high principle and the aggressive terms in which at least some of the speeches have been couched, that so few Labour Members have been present. Indeed, some of the speeches showed signs that their makers had not intended to speak.
For all the talk of principles—I do not pretend that there are not principles to be discussed—my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) was right in the reasons he

put forward for the motion being on the Order Paper. We all know that they have nothing to do with principle but everything to do with politcal calculation.
I make no great protest about that, any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Bath did. It is part and parcel of the way we too often operate in the House. All that I object to is having political calculation dressed up as if it were a moral crusade. [Interruption.] I specifically said that there are points of principle but that those are not the reasons for the motion being on the Order Paper. Labour Members know that as well as I do.

Mr. David Ennals: Is it not perfectly right and proper that it there is not only deep feeling among Labour Members—we are all united—but also deep feeling amongst Conservative Members that we should bring the issue before the House?

Mr. Newton: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman knows as much about cutting social services as any hon. Member. About a week ago the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) unveiled a programme that was a vast juggernaut of social security expenditure. There were billions upon billions of great schemes for pensions, the disabled, the improvement of child benefit and the extension of unemployment benefits almost with let or hindrance to many people.
Why then do we have this relatively miniscule proposal on the Order Paper? I shall tell the House why. It was hoped to harness a few of my hon. Friends to that juggernaut. I do not object to that. I understand it. I object only to having the moral crusade element built into the debate.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd asked for the yield of the taxation that has been levied on unemployment benefit since July. I regret that it is not possible to state precisely how much has been collected to date from that source. However, the estimated yield from taxing benefits paid to the unemployed—supplementary benefit as well as unemployment benefit—for the period from July 1982 to April 1983 is £375 million.
One of the slightly odder strands in the argument—I say this to my hon. Friends as well—is the attempt to pretend that there is, or ought to be, some equation between the yield of that taxation and the unemployment benefit. That taxation was introduced—it is worth restating this to the House because it has not emerged in the debate—because of the unfairness of the existing system in which a man with a given income, solely derived from employment, would, in the course of a year, pay more tax than a man with the same income partly derived from his employment and partly from unemployment benefit.

Mr. Jim Lester: While I wholly accept that argument, would the Minister also say why the 5 per cent. abatement was introduced?

Mr. Newton: As has been made clear, and as I am happy to repeat, the 5 per cent. abatement was introduced in the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 along with three or four other measures that were neither pleasant nor popular, as a necessary way of restraining the growth of public expenditure on social security. It was done with a view to enabling the social security budget, which constitutes about £1 in every £4 of Government expenditure, to make some contribution to the


Government's fundamental aim of reducing inflation, strengthening the economy and thus of securing the future of employment in this country.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) knows, and may well remind me, I was the Government Whip on that Bill. I cannot pretend that it was an easy or pleasant task to help to steer that Bill through the Committee. However, I believed that it was necessary then, and in the light of the improvement now emerging in the economy we have been shown to be right—[interruption]—I know that the Opposition are not very pleased about the fall in the rate of inflation and of interest rates, because it rather knocks on the head the story that they have been trying to sell. However, if the Opposition are truly interested in the problems of the unemployed they will recognise that it is of prime importance to them to—

Mr. Haynes: Get them back to work.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is the first sensible thing he has said this evening. We should be discussing how to get the unemployed back to work. However, we have taken the first step to getting people back to work by reducing inflation and interest rates and by creating the opportunity for business to rebuild on a firmer platform.
The measure that we have been debating, along with the other measures in the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980, are among those that have played their part in producing the achievements that we can now see.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: If it is a fact that the Government's economic policy will result in higher unemployment, is it not a basic tenet of Conservative philosophy that those who will suffer—the unemployed—should not have to do so unduly?

Mr. Newton: Yes, and I shall come to that point in a moment. My hon. Friends the Members for Chippenham (Mr. Needham), Bath and Beeston (Mr. Lester) will not hear me or my colleagues defending the position that was introduced by the 1980 Act on the basis that it is an essential part of creating incentives for people to work, or of creating a position in which people have no incentive to stay on benefits. That is no part of our argument tonight.
I shall set out some of the facts that should be weighed before hon. Members determine their attitudes to the motion. I emphasise that they are not in any way intended as arguments against restoring the abatement, although they are arguments against taking a decision in isolation, as the motion seeks to do. There has been some recognition, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston, that the effect of undertaking the policies set out in the motion would not—as appears to have been believed by most hon. Members—benefit the unemployed in general. At best, it would benefit about one in four of the unemployed.

Mr. John: Three-quarters of a million.

Mr. Newton: It would benefit many people, but it would do nothing for the long-term unemployed, who have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit. It would do little or nothing for many families with children, who would already be receiving supplementary benefit as well as unemployment benefit. Looking at it from the other side, the main beneficiaries of the motion

would be those who had been unemployed for less than a year, whose spouses—whether husbands or wives—are working, those who are occupational pensioners, those who are single non-householders, such as young people who live at home with their parents, and those with more than £2,500 in capital. In no way do I wish to pretend that those people are undeserving—the reverse is true. I am glad that we have been able to help many of them by raising the capital cut-off this week to £2,500—a very welcome measure—but in deciding its attitude to the motion, the House should at least acknowledge that they are not the worst-off among the unhappy total of unemployed.

Mr. John: What will happen to the comparative virtue of those people between now and the Budget judgment?

Mr. Newton: I have already referred to the increases in benefit which are taking place this week, which my right hon. Friend outlined, and which will be bringing substantial increases in income to all those on unemployment benefit as well as to those on other benefits. At the same time, by some of the changes we have made in the supplementary benefit system, we shall be adding to the range of those who can be helped in that way.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Considering the reports that have appeared in the newspapers over the past weekend and over the past week, will the Minister tell the House what is the difference in the position today following the Secretary of State's statement and the position last night before that statement was made?

Mr. Newton: The statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate was a clear-cut undertaking and reaffirmation by the Government. This reflects something for which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) asked—that the abatement is not seen as a permanent measure. It was a clear undertaking—I speak again to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford—that this matter is being, and will be, considered by the Government in taking the decisions that need to be put together at the time of the Budget.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Newton: I shall not give way again.
My hon. Friends have spoken in terms of this being a special commitment, and I understand and recognise their feelings, but it is also a special commitment by, I hope, all Members on the Conservative Benches to concentrate available resources on those most in need. It is also our special commitment to restrain taxation and the burden of contributions so that new jobs can be created for the unemployed and, not least, it is a special commitment by all Conservative Members to a Government who seek to take their decisions in as orderly and rational a way as the uncertainties and the unpredictable nature of the world permits, a Government—

Mr. Allen McKay: rose—

Mr. Newton: —who seek to balance claims against resources and to look at all claims against the totality of resources in a measured and coherent way.
The House is not being asked to endorse again the 1980 Act, though it did so at the time and, as I have said, I


believe it has been justified by events. It is not being asked to endorse again the difficult judgment made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier in the year about whether abatement should be restored in the uprating that takes place this week. The House has made a judgment on that on a number of occasions. I emphasise again to my hon. Friends that the House is not being asked to endorse the abatement as a permanent feature. We have made it clear time after time that that is not our intention.
The House is being asked to reject the motion, and, as my right hon. Friend said, to recognise that the right time for this decision to be made is in the context of all the decisions which will have to be taken at the time of the next Budget, in looking ahead to the next uprating. My right hon. Friend has given his assurance that it is being, and will be, considered. He has said that the argument is not one of principle but of timing. On that basis I seek the support of my hon. Friends in the Lobby tonight.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 294.

Division No. 13]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Adams, Allen
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Allaun, Frank
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Dixon, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dormand, Jack


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Douglas, Dick


Ashton, Joe
Dubs, Alfred


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Beith, A. J.
Eadie, Alex


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
English, Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, John (Newton)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Harry


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Field, Frank


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Fitch, Alan


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Foulkes, George


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Campbell, Ian
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Freud, Clement


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Carmichael, Neil
George, Bruce


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cartwright, John
Ginsburg, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, John


Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Gourlay, Harry


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Graham, Ted


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cook, Robin F.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Cowans, Harry
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hardy, Peter


Crawshaw, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cryer, Bob
(Peckham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)
Heffer, Eric S.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)





Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Pitt, William Henry


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Rt Hon J.E.(S Down)


Homewood, William
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Hooley, Frank
Prescott, John


Horam, John
Price, C.(Lewisham W)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Race, Reg


Howells, Geraint
Radice, Giles


Hoyle, Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Huckfield, Les
Richardson, Jo


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Allan(Bootle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Ernest Hackney N)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)


Janner, Hon Greville
Robertson, George


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson,G.(Coventry NW)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


John, Brynmor
Rooker, J.W.


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roper, John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Ross, Stephen(Isle of wight)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ryman, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sever, John


Kerr, Russell
Sheerman, Barry


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kinnock, Neil
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lambie, David
Short, Mrs Renée


Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford)


Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt Hon S.C.(Dulwich)


Leighton, Ronald
Silverman, Julius


Lestor, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Snape, Peter


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Soley, Clive


Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stallard, A.W.


McCartney, Hugh
Steel, Rt Hon David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stoddart, David


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stott, Roger


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Strang, Gavin


McKelvey, William
Straw, Jack


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McMahon, Andrew
Thomas, Dafyd (Merioneth)


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McTaggart, Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McWilliam, John
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Marks, Kenneth
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Tilley, John


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Torney, Tom


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Townsend, cryil D, (B'heath)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Maxton, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Meacher, Michael
Wainwright, R.(colne V)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wardell, Gareth


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton ltchen)
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Welsh, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
White, Frank R.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Morton, George
Whitehead, Phillip


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wigley, Dafydd


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Newens, Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Woolmer, Kenneth


Palmer, Arthur
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Park, George
Wright, Shelia


Parker, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Parry, Robert



Pavitt, Laurie
Tellers for the Ayes;


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Penhaligon, David
Mr. Derek Foster






NOES


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Aitken, Jonathan
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Alexander, Richard
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fookes, Miss Janet


Ancram, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Tom
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Fry, Peter


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Gardiner, George(Reigate)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Banks, Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bendall, Vivian
Goodhart, Sir Phillip


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Goodlad, Alastair


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gorst, John


Best, Keith
Gow, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gower, Sir Raymond


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grant, Antony (Harrow C)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gray, Hamish


Blackburn, John
Greenway, Harry


Blaker, Peter
Grieve, Percy


Body, Richard
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Gummer, John Selwyn


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hamilton, Hon A.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury


Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brinton, Tim
Hannam, John


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Hastings, Stephen


Brooke, Hon Peter
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayhoe, Barney


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heddle, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Henderson, Barry


Buck, Antony
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Budgen, Nick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Holland, Phillip (Carlton)


Butcher, John
Hooson, Tom


Butler, Hon Adam
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Rt Hon D. G'ldf'd)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chapman, Sydney
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman


Churchill, W. S.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jossph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Colvin, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cope, John
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Corrie, John
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Costain, Sir Albert
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Jill


Dover, Denshore
Lamont, Norman


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lang, Ian


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawerence, Ivan


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Eggar, Tim
Lee, John


Elliott, Sir William
Le Marchant, Spencer


Eyre, Reginald
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Farr, John
Luce, Richard


Fell, Sir Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Macfarlane, Neil





MacGregor, John
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Scott, Nicholas


McQuarrie, Albert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Madel, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Major, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marlow, Antony
Shepherd, Richard


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shersby, Michael


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Silvester, Fred


Mates, Michael
Sims, Roger


Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smith, Dudley


Mayhew, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mellor, David
Speller, Tony


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Spence, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Miscampbell, Norman
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stainton, Keith


Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Montgomery, Fergus
Stanley, John


Moore, John
Steen, Anthony


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stevens, Martin


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mudd, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Murphy, Christopher
Stokes, John


Myles, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Normanton, Tom
Thompson, Donald


Nott, Rt Hon John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Onslow, Cranley
Thornton, Malcolm


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Osborn, John
Tripper, David


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Parris, Matthew
Viggers, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Waddington, David


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Hon William


Percival, Sir Ian
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walker, B. (Perth)


Pink, R. Bonner
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Pollock, Alexander
Wall, Sir Patrick


Porter, Barry
Waller, Gary


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Ward, John


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Warren, Kenneth


Prior, Rt Hon James
Watson, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, Bowen


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Whitney, Raymond


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wickenden, Keith


Renton, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhodes James, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Winterson, Nicholas


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Rossi, Hugh
Tellers for the Noes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. Carol Mather and


Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr, Antony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the motion on national assistance services is not being moved. Therefore, the Ten o'clock business motion is unnecessary.

MERCHANT SHIPPING

Ordered,
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 18th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Lang.]

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of the National Health Service in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 64 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee have considered the matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Lang.]

De La Salle College of Education

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Jim Callaghan: I should like to record my thanks to Bishop Holland of the diocese of Salford, the Reverend Brother Wilfred and the Reverend Brother Terrance, the principal and vice-principal, respectively, of De La Salle college, Middleton, Mr. Cunningham, the secretary of the Catholic Education Council for England and Wales and the staff and students of Hopwood Hall for their excellent assistance and close co-operation in our attempt to change the proposed decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to close De La Salle Catholic college of education.
On 6 August 1982, just after Parliament had gone into recess, the Secretary of State provisionally proposed that initial teacher training courses should be discontinued at De La Salle and other colleges of education. The college governors were invited to make representations against the proposals before 17 September. That time scale was unacceptable to the governors of De La Salle. The time allowed by the Department was inadequate for us to prepare a full case against the proposed cuts.
When Parliament was in recess, many people were on holiday and educational establishments and offices were closed or had reduced staff and it was impossible to arrange adequate discussions or to submit fully developed arguments to counter the decisions that had already been arrived at in the Department of Education and Science. Where was the prior consultation that we expect in a democracy? Why was the announcement made after Parliament went into recess? Despite the restrictions and difficulties caused by the time factor, the college governors of De La Salle immediately called an emergency meeting to discuss the proposals of the Department of Education and Science.
The meeting lasted three hours, during which it became clear that the impact of the proposal would be disastrous for the college and the local community. The governors were surprised, disturbed and dismayed, as I was, at the grave implications for religious teaching, education and the economy of the Middleton area. The proposed closure will take £2½ million out of the local economy by the loss of 70 professional jobs and 200 ancillary jobs and the loss of student grants and services to the area. The closure is proposed when Middleton is suffering from the grave consequences of the economic depression more than most towns of a comparable size.
The governors were anxious about the grave consequences of the implementation of the proposal for the Catholic school system in the North-West and its effects on the supply of newly trained teachers and the development of in-service courses to meet the schools' needs. They resolved to oppose the proposals and make every effort to have the decision reversed. In addition, indignation was expressed about the lack of prior consultation, the inconvenience of the announcement's timing and the brevity of the period to make the representations.
Despite the time limit, a delegation of individual representatives from the college, Manchester university, the local education authority, the Catholic education authority and hon. Members from both sides of the House


was led by Bishop Holland to meet the Minister on 23 September. Despite the case put forward on 8 November the Minister wrote to the principal, Reverend Brother Wilfred, that "provisionally" the Department of Education and Science proposed to discontinue initial teacher training at the college.
Just over a week ago in the House, I asked the Minister whether the provisional proposal meant the closure of the college. His answer was "Yes". His apparent determination to close the college is incomprehensible.
The college is in the forefront in training design and technology teachers, whose skills are highly relevant to the nation's needs. De La Salle has developed the most advanced department of design and technology and also has an important microelectronics centre, much of which is involved with the initial teacher training programmes. The centre is the only one of its kind in the country. Design and technology is one of the main shortage subjects in schools, yet the Government are closing one of the curriculum leaders.
A new science and technology block has just been completed at the Department's suggestion and will have cost £1 million by the time a new computer has been installed; yet it is the only college that the Department seems determined to close. Its attitude does not make economic or any other sense.
The decision means that the college will die slowly over three years. It will cease to exist, just like another Catholic college of education in my constituency—Sedgley Park.
Is not the Minister's decision to close De La Salle a violation of the Roman Catholic hierarchy's right to allocate and distribute its traditional percentage share of teacher training places? Secondly, is it not a de facto circumvention of the Education Act 1944 which inaugurated the dual system? Is the Minister not attempting to undermine the Act by an administrative ploy and to have it nullified without recourse to parliamentary debate?
Thirdly, does the Minister recognise that in the alleged consultations with the Catholic Education Council neither he nor his assistants made it clear that their real aim was to close one Roman Catholic college?
Fourthly, is it not financially expedient for the Minister to select a voluntary college for closure? He can thereby more easily avoid financial obligations to redundant staff, in particular by refusing to make adequate funds available for early retirement schemes with enhanced pensions comparable to those in the maintained colleges.
In a written reply to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) the Secretary of State referred to
unavoidable redundancies among teaching staff.
He stated:
Teachers aged 50 and over who lose their posts because of redundancy qualify for statutory minimum redundancy payments and for the existing premature retirement compensation terms. Those arrangements will continue to apply.
Does the Minister intend to ensure that in the voluntary sector additional funds will be made available to the central reserve so that all claims for redundancy and premature retirement compensation are met in full?
The Secretary of State also said:
Additionally, because of the substantial reduction in advanced further education teaching (including colleges of education) that is expected over the next few years, I have decided to allow local education authorities and governors of

voluntary and direct grant colleges in England and Wales discretion to offer improved terms to teachers aged 41 to 49 in advanced further education for the period of the academic year 1982 to 1985. The new maximum payment will be 66 weeks' pay, subject to age and length of service."—[Official Report, 8 November 1982; Vol. 31, c. 36–37.]
In allowing the governors of voluntary colleges discretion to offer the maximum payment, does the Minister intend to give them sufficient funds to make the payments in full?
Fifthly, has the Minister already determined to close other voluntary colleges in the near future under the smokescreen of further administrative exercises?
Sixthly, did the Minister take steps to ascertain the percentage of non-Catholic students in each Roman Catholic college before deciding which one to close?
Seventhly, is the Minister aware that De La Salle college is one of the Roman Catholic colleges with the smallest percentage of non-Catholic students and that it has faithfully remained close to the original purpose of its foundation?
Eighthly, does the Minister agree that in closing De La Salle college he will be closing a viable, healthy college with an excellent standard of teacher training and does he admit that he is suppressing it merely for the financial savings that will result?
Ninthly, will the Minister now state clearly the precise grounds on which the decision to close De La Salle college was made and will he explain those grounds in specific terms rather than in vague references to general criteria applied to all colleges?
Tenthly, is it true that when the criteria were initially applied, De La Salle college was not on the resulting list of closures but was added at a subsequent stage and was that done for new and quite different reasons?
Eleventhly, has the Minister any idea of the enormous financial burden that the closure will place on the providing body?
Twelfthly, has the Department abandoned the principle of the historic share, leaving the Catholic Education Council with only 8·5per cent. of public sector teacher training rather than its historic share of 9·33 per cent.?
Thirteenthly, and lastly, because of the distribution of Catholic population, the Catholic Education Council has aimed to have about 50 per cent. of its total teacher training in the North of England. Does the Minister agree that his decision would reduce the percentage in the North to 39 per cent. so that the North as a whole would suffer as well as the area around Middleton?
If the Minister cannot give me the answers off the top of his head, I hope that he will give them to me in writing.
Despite my questions about redundancy payments, I should make it clear that the Catholic community will fight to save the last Catholic college in the North-West on which 300 Catholic schools in the surrounding area and about 900 schools within easy access of Middleton depend. That is one-third of all the country's Catholic schools.
On 10 November 1982, to show that the fight was on, the 42 Roman Catholic bishops passed a resolution at their conference rejecting the Minister's decision and directing the appropriate Department of their education commission to challenge that decision and to secure its withdrawal.
I personally deplore the erosion of the rights of the Catholic community to its historic share of initial teacher training places, the erosion of the rights of the bishops to control through the Catholic Education Council, the


distribution of such places, and the damage that will be done to the interests of the Catholic community, particularly in the North of England.
The Minister's proposal in effect limits the choice of Catholic students to be trained in a Catholic college. I assure the Minister, as I did on 23 September when I came to see him with Bishop Holland, that the bishops and the Catholic community are appalled at the damage that will be done to the Catholic position in the national education system if the closure takes place. As Bishop Holland said on 23 September, we have a dual system of education that has lasted for more than 100 years, but the Minister's proposed decision will violate the Catholic place in that system.
The proposed decision also encourages the suspicion that political considerations have outweighed judgments of educational quality. It is hard to accept that the main victim of the exercise—indeed, the only college to close—with its brand new facilities and high reputation in the shortage subjects of craft, design and technology and religion is less valuable to the nation than some of the institutions that have survived.
Therefore, I urge the Minister—it is no good his nodding his head—to reconsider and change his decision. If he fails to do so, it is my belief that he will turn this into a national issue. This decision represents an unfair and unjust descrimination against Catholics. I ask the Minister please to reconsider his decision.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I should like briefly to—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the agreement of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan), who has the Adjournment, and the Minister, to speak on the Adjournment?

Mr. Haselhurst: I believe so.
I should like to underline the main thrust of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan). I once had the honour of representing that constituency in the House, and thus am well acquainted with De La Salle college. Obviously, I feel keenly about the decision with which we are faced.
The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich will understand that I cannot agree with all his arguments because I realise that my hon. Friend has difficult decisions to make on the totality of training places in the country. I stress, however, that this is an enormous blow to Middleton. The area has already seen the closure of one Catholic teacher training college. The loss of De La Salle would be serious indeed.
I also underline the loss to the Catholic community of greater Manchester. I remember that there were eight Catholic parishes in Middleton alone, let alone the large Catholic population all round and in Manchester. There will be a real sense of loss, both in terms of education and the blow to the community of Middleton, if the college disappears.
I hope that this matter can be carefully reconsidered. I am surprised that, if there has to be a thinning out in Catholic teacher training colleges, Middleton seems to have attracted the axe that Newman college seems to have escaped. It is not for me to make that decision. I imagine that the Department has the advice of the Catholic

hierarchy on what is the best way to administer any cuts that might be considered by the Department to be necessary.
I hope that a way may be found to maintain both establishments, as this would be in the best interest of maintaining the number of Catholic teacher training colleges. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that the door is not finally closed on what would be a serious blow to the Catholic community of greater Manchester, and in particular to the constituency of Middleton and Prestwich.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): I can clear up a number of points made by the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan); some can be cleared up quickly, others will require a letter to the hon. Gentleman.
There is a misunderstanding about the word "provisionally" in the letter of 8 November. The sentence begins:
I wrote on 6 August to inform you that, provisionally".
The letter of 8 November was the decision taken after consultation, and, subject to the will of the House, is the final decision.
With regard to redundancy, there is money available to make sure that the intention of the Secretary of State about redundancy terms for the voluntary sector and the local authority colleges are the same.
I should be speaking with equal passion if a college in my constituency were being affected, and I understand the hon. Gentleman. However it is not fair to say that the Roman Catholic hierarchy has or ever had a right to distribute the targets among its colleges. The Education (Schools and Further Education) Regulations make it clear that this is a function of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: I have a large number of points to answer in the speech of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich alone, so I cannot give away.
I shall give a little of the background. As recently as 1971 initial teacher training was undertaken in 42 universities and 184 public sector institutions, producing an output of 40,000 new teachers a year. The decisions that were announced in 1977 went some way to aligning supply with possible demand, but even then not enough was done. There must be further reductions over the next two or three years.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: In May, advice from the advisory committee pointed to a considerable reduction in the overall need for newly trained teachers following the sharp fall in the birth rate and the school population. There has been a reduction in the school population of more than 1·5 million—more than 25 per cent.—in the past decade.
The Secretary of State's proposals try to align the supply of teachers overall from all the institutions more nearly with the jobs that will be available. In secondary teaching we shall still be producing many more teachers than will possibly have jobs. We think that that is right, as it will give the employing authorities a real choice. It is clear that to allow the teacher training sector—voluntary, local authority or university—to preempt funds from higher education resources as a whole,


which would otherwise be available for other courses, would not be fair to those who would then not find places on other courses. It is sometimes not understood that these are not additional cuts to those outlined in the White Paper and debated by the House. These are part of the higher education cuts. If resources are pre-empted in this area they will have to come from somewhere else.

Mr. Frank R. White: But what is the percentage in the North-West?

Mr. Waldegrave: The proportion of teacher training places available in the North West planning region—it is 28·7 per cent. per 100,000—is considerably higher than the national average, which is 24 per cent. per 100,000. The North-West has not been unfairly treated.

Mr. White: But what about the cuts?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is after the cuts. It is argued that it would have been possible to spread the cuts in places more thinly between more institutions. That was one of the options but I believe that it would have been the wrong one to take.
It has been said that in due course we shall need to expand the supply of teachers. Having considered all the options, we came to the conclusion that it would not be the best course to expand institutions which would be weakened in the interim because of a low uptake. Students do not take up places when jobs are not available following secondary courses. That is part of the trouble. At a time when many places in courses in higher education—

Mr. Charles R. Morris: There was an increased uptake.

Mr. Waldegrave: The targets were handled in a different way this year, including those for BEd at De La Salle. Recruitment generally was increased this year because of the lower targets that were set.

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: The BEd course at De La Salle was not an especially high recruiter. Students are not taking up courses in teacher training, which are providing training for jobs that will not be available.

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: We are not offering a kindness to students by training them for jobs that will not be available.

Mr. Morris: What about consultation?

Mr. Waldegrave: I accept that the time scale for consultation was tough this year. It would have been no kindness to the colleges, or to their providing authorities, to prolong the consultation. That would have resulted in long delays and a planning blight on colleges. There was no college affected by the proposals that was not enabled to produce formidable cases to me and the Secretary of State. Hon. Members from both sides of the House approached my right hon. Friend and myself and the Catholic Education Council was consulted. There were many letters and delegations.

Mr. McNamara: Rubbish.

Mr. Morris: There was no consultation.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Catholic Education Council and I met delegations from all the affected colleges who requested it.

Mr. McNamara: Only under pressure.

Mr. Waldegrave: After the proposals were published we had consultations. Some of the proposals were amended, as hon. Members will be aware. The consultations were real, because in four cases—

Mr. Morris: There was no consultation.

Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Member is perhaps overheated because his consultations were not successful. However, four other consultations were successful and the proposals were changed.

Mr. Morris: Ask Brother Wilfred.

Mr. Waldegrave: I had conversations with Reverend Brother Wilfred and with other members of the Catholic hierarchy. Senior churchmen said to us fairly—perhaps more fairly than has been said to us across the House tonight—that few countries in Western Europe treat the denominations with the generosity that, during the years, Governments have treated denominations in Britain. They are given complete freedom to spend taxpayers' money on religious education. Senior members of the Catholic church were generous enough to say at the beginning of the consultations that this has been and remains a generous regime.
Let us consider the argument of the Roman Catholic share. It is understood, certainly by senior members of the hierarchy, that as the teacher training system becomes smaller, it becomes more difficult finely to tune the percentages, because, by definition, each institution represents a larger share of the smaller totals and one cannot manoeuvre it to the exact percentage point. The intakes to Catholic colleges last year were about 8·8 per cent. After my right hon. Friend's decisions, the intakes will be about 8·5 per cent. That is a loss to the Catholic share of teacher training, but it is hard to describe it in the catastrophic terms of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: It is 100 per cent. disastrous for this college.

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not deny the fact that the proposals so far as this college is concerned are entirely unsatisfactory. However, those are the decisions that we must take. We must try to balance a wide range of considerations against one another and reach a decision that is bound to be unsatisfactory to many colleges.
It was clear to all those who studied the matter that some colleges would be closed and that the proponents of the colleges to be closed would not welcome the decision. A wide range of factors were taken into account—

Mr. Frank R. White: Why did you close this college?

Mr. Waldegrave: The use of resources was one factor, the commitment of the institution and the providing body to teacher training—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would listen with their ears instead of with their mouths, they might learn. We considered the strength of the institution, the commitment to education and the relationship between teacher training and other courses.


We looked for a commitment to primary work, where we are calling for rapid expansion, and the proposals of the college developed in consultation with officials—

Mr. Morris: There was no consultation.

Mr. Waldegrave: Consultations have been taking place for months with officials about what the college would do for the development of primary education. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) points to one factor that weighed in the college's favour. Money has been spent there, but it would have been impossible to allow that tail to wag the whole dog. The £250,000 spent at the college is a loss and must be written off. We could not allow the matter to be decided because of one investment decision.
We considered the existing base for primary work, the recruitment patterns, the facilities and resources, the relationship between PGCE and BEd courses, in-service training in the area and the geographical distribution of institutions. Having come to the conclusion that it was desirable to keep open—it will depend ultimately on student choice—one of the two—

Mr. Morris: It has nothing to do with student choice.

Mr. Waldegrave: That is not so. Having come to the conclusion that it was right to keep open one college, we noted that there was considerable Catholic presence in the North-West, and Birmingham would have had no Catholic representation. However, in terms of the supply to

schools, it is possible to over-estimate the number required. The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich said that there are about 300 Catholic schools in the area. The output of the college is in no way commensurate with the needs of the schools. It is a significant proportion—

Mr. Frank R. White: Why did you choose De La Salle?

Mr. Waldegrave: The teachers in those schools come from a wide range of institutions—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard me reading out the list of criteria against which we decided. Ultimately, we had to make the difficult decision that some teacher training colleges would close. That is a decision not unfamiliar to Members of the Labour Party—

Mr. White: The Minister chose this one.

Mr. Waldegrave: Many more teacher training colleges were closed by the Labour Government than by this Government.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: The consultations were deep and were much more productive than the—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.